Apparently, Matt Nisbet didn't think that one poorly-reasoned critique of Gore's ability to communicate science was enough for the weekend, because he tossed out another a day later. You might recall that in his first critique, Nisbet claimed that Gore contributes to the partisan divide over climate change. His presentation of the issue is too alarmist, Matt claimed, which makes it easy for Republicans to dismiss the entire message. In this latest post, he claims that Gore has had "limited success" in getting the American public to be more aware of the problem because a lot of people have an unfavorable impression of Gore. Gore's low approval rating, Nisbet claims, means that there are a lot of people who aren't inclined to listen to anything Gore has to say on the topic.
Come on, Matt, which is it? Does Gore have "little success" convincing Republicans because his message uses the dreaded "Pandora's Box Frame" and can be dismissed as too alarmist, or does Gore have "limited success" convincing Republicans because they're not inclined to favorably listen to anything he has to say, regardless of how it's framed? Inquiring minds want to know.