It may not seem so, but I really am educated (if you count law school as education, which may be arguable). When Gore used the term "over-represent" that, to me, is lying, and acknowledging it as such by him. If he had said "We must represent the factual presentation much more than we are presently doing," then he would not be acknowledging the exaggeration (i.e., lie) of his claims. But here he used the term "over-represent" meaning to represent more than is appropriate under the circumstances. That is acknowledgment of lying, it seems to me.
It comes down to the term "over-represent." It's purely a statistical usage, factually neutral.
For instance, I could just as easily say that it's appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on the dangers of Islam. By that I would mean that the danger has for so long been ignored by the mainstream media and most politicians that the problem has increased in severity, and we are to the point of needing a disproportionate amount of attention given to it in order to get something done about it.
Now then, I have just used the same grammatical structure as Gore. Have I, anywhere in there, been untruthful? Have I justified lying? The only substantive difference is in the actual information contained within the message I want to spread, which is not the point I was making.