Convenient spins for an inconvenient truth?

(a vampire approves)

I don’t know what you may think about Al Gore’s recent movie, An Inconvenient Truth, but I liked it very much. Very, very much. Back in my time, some 800 years ago, it was all about the Tartars and the Saracens. If you wanted to keep your subjects in line, as a warlord, you had only to let the wondering preachers steer the populace and frighten it and they would turn to you as their savior. Dubbya’s administration is doing the same thing now and he’s doing a hell of a good job fooling people. But if you’re a liberal, you have to come up with something less hawkish but just as scary an effective. And there you have it: global warming. There is the enemy that you have to fight – under the enlightened and steadfast leadership of some politician
I come to know a few things, in the course of the centuries, about the relationship between apocalyptic prophecies and political power. Their mach is made in heaven, and Sen. Gore knows all the tricks of the game. First one: you should believe what you are trying to say, because you’ll be more convincing. Second one: you should pick a trendy fear, the coming of global warming, the ottomans, the tartars, the Vikings the Saracens and so forth, according to the spirit of that age. Third one: pick something that has a grain of truth to it, so that you have only to exaggerate in front of people already inclined to believe you. That is how you pursue a good political career.
What I like especially about this Gore fellow is the fact that he is completely honest. Even to the point of admitting to be dishonest. Just listen to the man:

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. 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 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.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
(read the interview /here/)

Now, that is a true political leader talking! If you want to get the truth across, the best way is to lie a bit. It is as simple as that. How big that lie should be? Well, that depends on how prepared or unprepared the crowd you think it is, I guess. If they are not yet ready to face reality it is your political responsibility to push the borders of reality till they fit your propaganda. And when the crowd is prepared enough… well, then you need some “over-representation of factual presentations” to reassure them about the importance of the Cause. That’s my advice, in any case, to the gores and the dubbyas out there.
I am not disputing here the danger of global warming, mind you. I too think that it would be a tragedy if Greenland will become green once more, as it was when the Vikings colonized it. Think of that! Can you imagine the outrage of a green Greenland in an environmentally correct world? Of course not!