Monday, December 10, 2007

"Over-representation of facts"??

See previous post/rant.

Here's a sample of having to check and correct "facts", when your opponent is using emotionalism to gloss the story.
(Ok, sure. It is written by the other side. But this just points out the need for another side in these "Is It Science?" debates).

Al Gore admits that he "over-represented" the facts in his Oscar winning movie An Inconvenient Truth. Which makes me wonder: Is it truth? Is it inconvenient?

A few snippets from the article in NRO entitled Convenient Untruths by Deroy Murdock.

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem,” Gore told Grist in the May 9, 2006 Grist Magazine. “Given that starting 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.”
Murdock rightly asks: um, is "over-representation" the same as mis-representation? I'm sure the term is too nuanced for most of us to grasp.

"The alarmists who trumpeted recent years as ‘warmest ever!!!’ in the United States (by a mere tenth of a degree) now dismiss this reversal — 2000 and subsequent years being cooler than 1900 — as just being a tenth of a degree or so,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner. “Well, either that’s a big deal whichever direction it falls, or it isn’t. Which time are you lying?”
NASA has placed some of its temperature sensors in inappropriate locations (near parking lots, above barbecue grills!) and since 1970 has painted its previously white-washed temperature sites semi-gloss latex. Both of these things will artificially raise temperature readings. One wonders if there is a felt need at NASA to over-represent the facts in order to (you choose):
1. Get people off their duffs to fix this inevitable man-made global warming disaster.
2. Bolster its reputation as a cutting-edge and necessary publicly-funded organization.
3. Build careers for some of its people.

I don't know. But one wonders. Norman Teigen (see previous post: comments) is probably right. We ought to be grabbing for our wallets.

No comments: