However, let's look at a direct quote from Sibbison from his article: "Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception. The deception lay in what we didn't say." You can spin that any what you like it but it clearly states that the EPA press agents regularly cherry-picked what information they conveyed and how they conveyed it. It's called manipulation.
So I ask you why you would spend your effort shaming an anonymous Internet poster for repeating a quote that is widely used (even though wrongly) yet not mention at all that a government agency carries on in the exact same cherry-picking manner yet on a much larger scale deceiving the public in general? It's manipulation and it's not done through ignorance but rather with a purpose. It's almost like you work for the EPA or something related for you to just gloss over that fact.
By the way, while the quote may not be 100% accurate, I'm sure the message it conveys is generally correct. All the hand waving and pontificating about some cherry picking and using "..." isn't going to change that. It's frankly a surprise if you think it would.
Actually, your post is a great example of being pedantic.
***************************************...
Gringo: Best to start with some English lessons:
_______________________________________...
pedantic, adj. 1. Excessively concerned with minor details or rules.
skeptic, n. 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
A skeptic can certainly be pedantic perhaps some of the time or even all of the time. However, being pedantic does not make someone a skeptic. That's a logical fallacy.
_______________________________________...
censor. v 1. Examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
Censorship can be either legal or illegal, authorized or unauthorized. That means it can be either a good thing or a bad thing (depends on your opinion and on a case by case basis).
I have to give it to you that you do a great job of making your opinion look like fact and your tendency towards being pedantic to like you're being a thorough skeptic. You'd make a great press officer for the EPA.
_______________________________________...
Edit@Mike: "I think you have finally found a proper example of fake but accurate. That quote is not said by the person it is attributed to, but all the details you uncovered reinforce the made-up quote."
Yes, this is exactly what I was alluding to. And he has put all the emphasis on the "fake" and none on the "accurate" and then goes around calling other people not only cherry pickers, but hypocrites as well. Man, this **** is entertaining.
Gringo, I think you have finally found a proper example of fake but accurate. That quote is not said by the person it is attributed to, but all the details you uncovered reinforce the made-up quote.
What I want to know is how Hey Dook manages to get -9 votes for no best answer on his questions.
And yes, the science does depend on Al Gore. He is an influential spokesperson, even winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts. He has advocated that journalists not cover skeptical viewpoints with regards to global warming. It is only a small step to go from there to not funding skeptical scientists or projects that are contrary to the desired message.
There's an idea. Everytime Hey Dook posts a question where he blocks the answers, repost it 3 times, to allow others to post, and apparently he gets very annoyed when you get a best answer.
Your quote is wrong (again). And in great denier fashion, this wrong quote is all over the denier blogs, all unsourced.
It took me 30 minutes to track it down. It's a truly astonishing example of deniers being dishonest (or just plain stupid).
In September 1990 Accuracy in the Media (AIM) published an article on asbestos ("The Real Asbestos Story"). In one particular paragraph of the AIM report, the article's author writes:
'EPA press agents routinely wrote scare stories about "the hazards of chemicals, employing words like 'cancer' and 'birth defects' to splash a little cold water in reporters' faces..." '
The only pieces of text attributable to Sibbison are "the hazards of chemicals", "cancer" and "birth defects". The rest was written by the AIM author. Thus, claiming that Sibbison wrote that the EPA press agents routinely wrote scare stories is completely false.
The line "Our press reports were more or less true.." is another despicable example of distorting what was actually written by Sibbison which is: "Our press releases were more or less true; the air and water really were dirty, and we really were out to make it cleaner." (Page 3 Washington Monthly article).
Then the last line of your fabricated 'quote': "We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment." The full paragraph (the first on Page 7 of the Washington Monthly article) reads: "With the appointment of Anne Burford to head the EPA, the agency’s press officers found themselves marching to new orders. Previously, the EPA had sought to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment; now, a less, shall we say, active administration wanted to try a cooler approach."
Anne Burford was the Reagan appointed Head of the EPA. Sibbison, who retired in 1982, continued his original article as follows:
"The rules of the game were thus reversed for those of us who wrote the press releases. Where once we had written freely in our news materials about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like “cancer” and “birth defects” to splash a little cold water in reporters’ faces, suddenly we were urged to be more cautious. When we broke these rules, we were censored."
This last paragraph goes to show that not even AIM's asbestos article was accurate with regard to what Sibbison actually said. It too cherry-picked quotes and left out other important parts of the original text.
And after so much cherry-picking and quote-mining from so many fake skeptics, we end up with a fabricated quote which you and your fellow deniers happily copy and paste ad infinitum.
Again, doesn't your bible say anything about lying?
Edit @ OttawaMike:
This is sweet! While pretending to congratulate me on my research efforts to get all the original data in its original context, you again manage to distort the truth. Helluva a skeptic you are.
<< It's called manipulation. >>
What you are doing is manipulation because you are taking a quote completely out of context. Sibbison is talking about how, during the Reagan Years, they were often censored and thus had to come up with smart way to put out press-releases which both informed the public as did not offend Reagan politicians.
<
Hmmm.... Because it is BLATANTLY FALSE? (As are 99% of his copy-pasted quotes).
<<.By the way, while the quote may not be 100% accurate, I'm sure the message it conveys is generally correct. >>
If only you'd give the IPCC reports the same treatment. God, you are funny!
<
pe・dan・tic, synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky;
Gee, aren't all those qualities one might expect from a real skeptic?
Thanks again for underlining what a hypocrite you are.
You already "OPENED" up this question for your cheating sock puppets to give your anti-science garbage BA on it. Or did you forget that particular 700+th instance thereof?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
the science is independent of these factors.
Let us open this up to everyone.
The actual science of climate change doesn't rely on Al Gore or anyone else for that matter. But people's perception of the fearful climate change has been dramatized by industrialists, politicians, news media and corrupt scientists.
Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
