You may have a point but over-represented by its very definition means the numbers are inflated. Enron executives went to jail for doing this;)

What are you talking about? All over-represented means is that he is going to talk more about whether global warming exists than how to fix it.

In no way does it imply that the information about whether global warming exists is inflated.

If that's the case then I am wrong to call him a liar(at least on this point)

"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."

If one has a point to make, as say, Peter Schweizer, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy does, one presents, perhaps in an overwhelming fashion, facts supporting one's point of view.

Perfectly stated summary and one I can wholeheartedly agree with.

I'm going to point out what incredible trouble I would get into around here when someone would point out something Bush was doing and I would make a comparison to something Clinton did. I would usually be told that the only way I could justify something Bush did was to say Clinton did something worse. I think there's been some of that going on here.

I mentioned in the referenced thread that I don't begrudge anyone their lifestyle or their extravagnaces. But they had damn well better be watching over their actions when seemingly contradictory to what they are preaching.

Look at how Gore travels around the globe to preach his message. By jet. Has he ever heard of a satillite link or a phone call? I really don't care that he flies somewhere to do it. Just don't tell me that my SUV (theoretical - I don't own an SUV) is going to destroy the planet when one of your plane trips burns more fuel than my SUV does in several years.

It reeks of Animal Farm. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Kevy, you rock.

Oh! If we want to talk about environmental hypocrisy, how about Obama? Apparently he was at a townhall meeting preaching about not driving gas guzzlers. He then drove off in a 2007 GMC Envoy. When questioned, his press secretary claimed it was running on E85. However, the 2007 GMS Envoy isn't able to run on E85.

Maybe his secretary was just "over-representing" the fact that he'd like to run on E85;)

Gore doesn't claim to not emit carbon pollution. He does claim to be carbon-neutral meaning that what carbon he does put into the atmosphere he takes out an equal amount.

Now, I have no idea if he lives up to that and it is certainly a valid argument that he is engaging in checkbook environmentalism (he gets to keep being profligate while simply writing a check that pay some non-profit to plant a lot of trees). But you can't (or, rather, shouldn't) label him as a hypocrite for not doing what you decide he should have said he would be doing.

Further, even if that were not the case, "you have to break some eggs to make an omellet" is also not necessarily hypocrisy. If he believes that by giving the presentation in person he can do a better job to convince people of his argument than by a satellite uplink then it makes sense to do so (especially if he does travel in a carbon neutral way).

Disagreeing with that evaluation also does not make him a hypocrite, it just makes him at odds with your evaluation.

I would prefer to see him be carbon-negative rather than carbon-neutral (I'd like to see all of be carbon-negative; even if the certainty of man-made emissions causing global warming isn't 100% it still makes sense to make the easy reductions) but again him not doing what I would prefer he do is not hypocrisy.

You know, knwing that virtually everything we do has some sort of environemntal consequences, it would be nice to see what exactly Gore does as his own contribution. Sure we could point to a million things any of us do that causes the environment to suffer, but how he personally addresses that issue , would in my mind make for a better story. And if in the end he did nothing, that would be far more damning. At this point, I really don't see enough to warrent serious criticism, I kinda even doubt he really has a green power purchase ability, since I think that dies with electric deregulation, though I suppose he could install solar heating on his roof.