al-Gore: It's okay to lie about Kyoto...

[Montgomery Burns]

Grist Magazine interviews al-Gore:

"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."

Also, I saw a 1 hour Global Warming Special on America's most trusted name in news, last Sunday. They showed EU Enviromental Minister Margot Wallstrom saying that Kyoto is about "the economy, about levelling the playing field for big businesses worldwide."

The Euro-socialists want to knock down the US economy which is kicking the crap out of the EU.

The Fox News GW Special also showed Jacques ChIraq saying - at The Hague in 2000 - "Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."

Quick PM Harper. Get us out of Kyoto.

Edited to add: I really blew the title on this thread. I wish I could change it. I posted this from work and was in a big hurry as I had some things to do.

The title should be: al-Gore: It's okay to lie about Global Warming because Global Warming is, um important.

Basically substitute Kyoto with global warming. Sorry about that ladies and gents.

Edited May 27, 2006 by Montgomery Burns

[BHS]

America's leaders of the early 20th century saw the looming disaster of socialism that today's Euro leaders can't even recognize in hindsight, even as they continue to wallow in it. That they also fail to see that Americans are even less likely to fall for "socialism through the back door" a hundred years later is illustrative of their retarded parochialism.

[Naci Sey]

Grist Magazine interviews al-Gore:

"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."

MB, I don't read that quote the same way you do.

You seem to be interpreting Gore as saying an exaggeration of the facts regarding global warming is OK. What I understand him to be saying is that it's OK, even necessary, to saturate the market with presentations on the issue, to make USians sit up and take notice. Gore isn't talking about embellishing the content, but increasing the quantity of such presentations to the public.

[Liam]

The hypocrisy of Kyoto is that some countries that were the most vocal advocates of the treaty and the most vocal critics of those who didn't sign aren't even following it. I also find it strange that the US was the main villain during the entire Kyoto debacle. Russia didn't sign for the longest time -- did they ever? -- yet their Soviet-era smog monsters never featured in a single editorial in Le Figaro.

[newbie]

Naci Sey, your take on it is right; that's exactly what Gore is saying. The title of this thread is very misleading.

[BubberMiley]

Sometimes when people on one side of an issue will go to any lengths to misrepresent the facts (so much so, they'll find it clever to equate environmentalism with muslim extremism and call him al-Gore), it becomes necessary to fight back hard. The planet is at stake and all.

[August1991]

Naci Sey, your take on it is right; that's exactly what Gore is saying. The title of this thread is very misleading.

Huh?

It seems the key phrase is: " ...over-representation of factual presentations... " That phrase will have to go into the "Are you invalidating me?" category. Talk about dissimulation.

Russia didn't sign for the longest time -- did they ever? -- yet their Soviet-era smog monsters never featured in a single editorial in Le Figaro.

Yes, Russia has ratified Kyoto. (And largely because of Russia and Eastern Europe, reported world greenhouse gas emissions are lower now than in 1990.)

I really blew the title on this thread. I wish I could change it. I posted this from work and was in a big hurry as I had some things to do.

The title should be: al-Gore: It's okay to lie about Global Warming because Global Warming is, um important.

Your correction is instructive because in fact we have two different issues: Global Warming and Kyoto.

In theory, global warming can occur (the planet Venus is one obvious example.) Is it occurring on earth now and is human activity causing it? Many well-informed and intelligent people answer yes to both questions.

The Kyoto agreement unfortunately tried to solve two problems simultaneously. It tried to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and it tried to deal with the disparities between rich and poor. In this, Kyoto is a recipe for disaster.

[Naci Sey]

Naci Sey, your take on it is right; that's exactly what Gore is saying. The title of this thread is very misleading.

Huh?

It seems the key phrase is: " ...over-representation of factual presentations... " That phrase will have to go into the "Are you invalidating me?" category. Talk about dissimulation.

Huh? Yes, that is the key phrase, but

'over-representation' = 'represented in excessive or large NUMBERS'

The phrase refers to quantity not quality, not the MISrepresentation, but an abundance of factual presentations.

[sharkman]

I think this is just more politician phrasing, with nobody exactly sure what he really means. Gore's good at that. Remember "I invented the internet"? He then had a ready made excuse to explain what he really meant, only that time the whopper was too big to cover up.

[Riverwind]

I think this is just more politician phrasing, with nobody exactly sure what he really means. Gore's good at that. Remember "I invented the internet"? He then had a ready made excuse to explain what he really meant, only that time the whopper was too big to cover up.

What Gore said was:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Gore's statement was accurate once he explained that he was referring to the various federal legislation that made the Internet possible.

However, I agree his choice of words was bad even if it is technically a true statement.

[BubberMiley]

I think this is just more politician phrasing, with nobody exactly sure what he really means. Gore's good at that. Remember "I invented the internet"? He then had a ready made excuse to explain what he really meant, only that time the whopper was too big to cover up.

I think this is just more people deliberately misunderstanding to advance their political agenda (or misunderstanding because they're too thick to understand), just like with Gore's Internet comment.

[newbie]

I think this is just more people deliberately misunderstanding to advance their political agenda (or misunderstanding because they're too thick to understand), just like with Gore's Internet comment.

and the title of this thread.

[sharkman]

I think this is just more politician phrasing, with nobody exactly sure what he really means. Gore's good at that. Remember "I invented the internet"? He then had a ready made excuse to explain what he really meant, only that time the whopper was too big to cover up.

I think this is just more people deliberately misunderstanding to advance their political agenda (or misunderstanding because they're too thick to understand), just like with Gore's Internet comment.

I think you need to lay off that grass you find so enjoyable so as to see the screen more clearly! See what it's made you do, defending a non-entity like Gore. Maybe you should switch to Columbian.

[BubberMiley]

Non-entity?

[Montgomery Burns]

Naci Sey, your take on it is right; that's exactly what Gore is saying. The title of this thread is very misleading.

I admitted that I screwed up on the title. I saw this just before I had a meeting and quickly, too quickly, posted this thread. However, substitute "Kyoto" with "global warming" in the title and I stand by what I said.

al-Gore has admitted that it is okay to lie about global warming to get his point across. The delicious irony is that Grist Magazine is an enviromental mag.

[Montgomery Burns]

Sometimes when people on one side of an issue will go to any lengths to misrepresent the facts (so much so, they'll find it clever to equate environmentalism with muslim extremism and call him al-Gore), it becomes necessary to fight back hard. The planet is at stake and all.

Let's not forget the fact that Bubber claimed that "irregardless" was an actual word...

[Montgomery Burns]

August1991:

Yes, Russia has ratified Kyoto. (And largely because of Russia and Eastern Europe, reported world greenhouse gas emissions are lower now than in 1990.)

They interviewed a Russian scientist (Yuri something or other) on the Fox News global warming special last Sunday. He said that Russia signed Kyoto because it was great for Russia. Why? They stand to make $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years. Why? Because they are not a "1st world country", i.e., their greenhouse gas emissions are set at a higher rate compared to Western countries (they showed a factory in Moscow that had not been upgraded since 1950 belching out pollution). Also, Yuri noted that much of Russia is desolate (eg, Siberia) and that allows them to stay under Kyoto's "rate" and allows them to sell credits to "Kyoto credits" to other companies who go over their "Kyoto rate" (they used, as an example, some company in Spain who had to pay $277 million to Russia for producing too much greenhouse gas emissions).

Yuri: We (Russia) ratified Kyoto because it is great for us financially!

Kyoto is a political tool by the Euro-socialists to halt capitalism - which is whipping socialism - economically.

EU Enviromental Minister on the record: "Kyoto is about levelling the playing field field - economically."

Or Jacques ChIraq: "Kyoto is a step towards world governance."

Damn that Fox News and their "we report, you decide" credo. :angry:

Why can't they have the same credo as the rest of the MSM: We Report Half, You Decide.

And Owl Gore? Busted!

[August1991]

They interviewed a Russian scientist (Yuri something or other) on the Fox News global warming special last Sunday. He said that Russia signed Kyoto because it was great for Russia. Why? They stand to make $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years. Why? Because they are not a "1st world country", i.e., their greenhouse gas emissions are set at a higher rate compared to Western countries (they showed a factory in Moscow that had not been upgraded since 1950 belching out pollution). Also, Yuri noted that much of Russia is desolate (eg, Siberia) and that allows them to stay under Kyoto's "rate" and allows them to sell credits to "Kyoto credits" to other companies who go over their "Kyoto rate" (they used, as an example, some company in Spain who had to pay $277 million to Russia for producing too much greenhouse gas emissions).

MB, I fear that arguing with you about this is probably a waste of time but here goes.

Kyoto does not set Russia's emission standards at a higher rate because it is not a "1st world country". Under Kyoto, countries are supposed to reduce their emissions below the baseline of 1990. According to official statistics, Russia emitted alot of CO2 in 1990 and official (Russian) statistics now show that Russia's emissions have fallen substantially - presumably because of the collapse of the Soviet economy.

The idea of people paying other people for emissions credits is excellent and is one of the best aspects of Kyoto. You get paid for working, you pay for your groceries and you pay for many other things you enjoy in life. I don't see why you shouldn't also pay for using the environment. The fact, MB, that you don't pay now for using the environment is indication enough to me that we face a serious problem. When something appears to be free, it usually isn't. And that's the situation with the world's environment.

Al Gore is right to raise this issue (but prevarication in defense of a position is rarely if ever productive).

----

The critical flaw in Kyoto is that by exempting some countries (China and India) completely from meeting targets and by arbitrarily picking 1990 as a baseline, Kyoto in effect gives ownership of the world's environment to everyone but North Americans. IOW, we will have to start paying for the use of something that was previously free but since the non-US/Canadian world has self-declared itself the owner, we'll write the cheques to them.

Consider this example. It used to be free to hunt wild animals in North America. Now, for wildlife conservation, hunters have to pay a license fee and follow certain rules. Imagine however if we were to decide (for some crazy reason) that Asians own all the wild animals in North America and so we'd send all the hunting fees collected to Asians.

Kyoto mixes something smart with something crazy. The US government obviously walked away from it. Chretien should have done the same.

[BubberMiley]

al-Gore has admitted that it is okay to lie about global warming to get his point across. The delicious irony is that Grist Magazine is an enviromental mag.

No, he said "an over-representation of factual presentations." That's not lying; that's erring on the side of caution.

[gerryhatrick]

Monty Burns: It is OK to lie about what Al Gore said.

Its a nice try Monty, gotta give you credit. Anyone who understands the English language does not get the same interpretation as you though.

If something is "over represented" it does not translate that it is being lied about.

[sharkman]

Gore lied. Interesting how some who chant that Bush lied can't see the forest for the trees on this one. His words are there in black and white, but hey, he's a lefty...

I'll be glad when his ten minutes of fame is up. The left has much brighter light bulbs around to carry the torch for global warming than some washed up vice prez.

[Montgomery Burns]

Sharkman, Gore didn't lie. You just don't understand leftist nuance.

[newbie]

Sharkman, Gore didn't lie. You just don't understand leftist nuance.

One more time, the quote in question:

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is... The dictionary has this to say of the word over-representation - Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers. So for those having trouble with the English language, this means (in context) that Gore feels the factual information should be presented many times. Hardly nuance, just plain english. Sheesh.

[BubberMiley]

Sharkman, Gore didn't lie. You just don't understand leftist nuance.

Who's lying when he clearly states a factual representation? Over-represent doesn't mean to lie. It means to stress.

[gc1765]

Naci Sey, your take on it is right; that's exactly what Gore is saying. The title of this thread is very misleading.

I admitted that I screwed up on the title. I saw this just before I had a meeting and quickly, too quickly, posted this thread. However, substitute "Kyoto" with "global warming" in the title and I stand by what I said.

al-Gore has admitted that it is okay to lie about global warming to get his point across. The delicious irony is that Grist Magazine is an enviromental mag.

I think you are missing the point that Naci Sey brought up, which is that Al Gore is not lying. He clearly says "...factual presentations..." Factual does not mean lying. He is saying that these facts should be over-represented because the average american won't believe that global warming is a problem until you tell them ten million times.