Dems: Virginia Station Won't Air GOP Climate Change Ad, Citing Factual Errors (VIDEO)

Congressional Republicans were dealt a setback Thursday in their attempt to punish Democrats in swing districts for voting for climate change legislation in the House last week.

WDBJ-TV, a Roanoke television station, will not air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), citing factual inaccuracies, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director Jen Crider. A source familiar with the station's decision confirmed Crider's account; WDBJ general manager Jeff Marks confirmed that the ad would not run, but declined to say why.

"The ad is not running, be we have not characterized why that is," said Marks. "We don't characterize why an ad is not running. We looked into the complaints [from national Democrats], but other than saying that, you really need to find out from the NRCC."

An NRCC source said that Democrats are mischaracterizing the station's decision. "One station has temporarily pulled the ad. The station manager has also informed us that he plans to notify the DCCC about their mischaracterization of what exactly has transpired. The ad is still set to run on the other stations in the local market," said the source.

Marks said the station has made no public statement saying that it rejected the ad for factual reasons. He confirmed that he notified Democrats that he had made no public statements about the ad. He did not reject the assertion that the ad was pulled because it was inaccurate, declining to comment instead.

Earlier, the nonpartisan organization FactCheck.org called the ad "wrong."

Adjudicated FactCheck:

The ad says the bill will result in lost jobs and cost "middle class families" $1,870 a year. That sounds pretty dire, until you consider that this week we posted an item about the Office of the Republican Whip Eric Cantor's claim that the same bill would "impose a national energy tax of up to $3,100." So is the cost of the legislation going down? Did the NRCC make a mistake in its math?

Hardly. While it may seem curious that House Republicans would flog two different cost figures for the proposed legislation, it is indicative of the difficulty in determining how a cap on carbon emissions could affect Americans' electricity bills. The NRCC ad credits a Washington Times editorial for its claim that the Waxman-Markey bill would make electricity prices "skyrocket," costing families $1,870 a year. But the NRCC is wrong.

Here's the ad:

Ryan Grim's book, This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America, is now on sale

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[polarcap2]

well now that realpolitik has admitted he cannot answer a few simple questions, can anyone else step in and defend his mindless rhetoric and provide something about global warming scientific proof, since he can't - after all, folks, we should be interested in learning facts here, though I recognize this blog is a fact-free zone

[realpolitic]

You have a fact free mind!

[polarcap2]

still can't answer my simple question?

[AFVet1A251]

All you have to do is read the report linked in a post above... As I said, the local weatherman isn't the expert, those people are.. and yes, I've looked them up. Their credentials are enough for me... sorry you can't understand or deal with scientific evidence.

[Genep34]

Ah some sanity. Someone actually sees thru all of the lies and phonyness.

[polarcap2]

As rfshunt stated "Yes, imagine just how factually incorrect it was. Those must have been some whoppers they were telling." as a reason to turn down the GOP ad. The ad was a tape segment of Bambam giving a campaign speech about cap and trade! LOL

[realpolitic]

Yes, and we know Bambam would never lie to us! You can go back to watching Freddie Flintstone now. Say hi to Barnie Rubble!

[realpolitic]

When did the GOP take it as their license to lie on each issue. If they want to dicsuss climate change they should take it as a scientific fact, as scientists are 90% sure of the link between man and the changing climate. Then they should argue how we should respond based on their small government, private sector believes and not a bunch of misinformation and science denial.

[polarcap2]

why would we admit to a 'fact' that doesn't exist? name your source of this link between man and 'the changing climate' - what we do not need is your bunch of misinformation and science denial

[realpolitic]

I am surprised we are not still waiting for conservatives to admit that the earth is round! YOu guys can not admit Darwin even 100 years after the Scopes Monket Trial!

[AFVet1A251]

Read the reports... It's all you need.

[polarcap2]

and why did the station refuse to air a tape of Bambam making a statement? political censorship?

[realpolitic]

They refused to air it because of all the factual errors as the article said. Can't conservatives approach policy without all the distortions and misrepresentations?

[Hailey73]

The first guy on the soapbox with the megaphone isn't always right. Gore is a smart one, made a documentary and get Lib Hollywood and the media on board. We don't know enough about the earth and the sun to really prove anything. scientefic "facts" of years past get disproved all the time. Do you really think the scientic facts of today will be the same in 100 years from now?

[polarcap2]

I guess good ol' Dan Rather must have got to the station directors - truth hurts CBS and they want no part of it!

[polarcap2]

I note the lefties here are trying to confuse pollution with so-called global warming - or is it 'climate change' now that they can't find any proof of warming? These are the same people and computer models from NASA who predicted global cooling in the '70s would have killed 75-80% of all animal life by the year 2000 - sounds Gore-like, doesn't it?

[AFVet1A251]

Links please...

[FormerReaganite]

Why do you conservatives always try to make global warming a political issue? It is a *scientific* issue. You sound just like the people who try to use science to explain the bible and the bible to explain science. What does science have to do with politics and religion?

[jaggededge]

if you actually think the burning of fossil fuels is not hurting the environment i suggest to take a look at the sky (if you can see it ) in china

if you have doubts about whether we're polluting the natural resources, i suggest you stop drinking bottled water & drink your tap water

[polarcap2]

pollution and global warming are two separate issues - we all agreee that pollution needs to be controlled - we do not agree that there is global warming (and neither do an ever-increasing number of climatologists)

[Hailey73]

Sadly your wasting your breath, they beleive majority rules. A little story for you, in 1870 a scientist named Von Wolff conducted an iron content test on spinach. His test proved spinach had a tremendous amout of iron as compared to other greens, noone questioned him and it gave birth to Popeye the Sailor man. In 1930 another test was done and htey found out that Von Wolff missplaced the decimal point and it was no higher in iron than any other green. That mistake gave us a cartoon and made many children suffer at dinner time, global warming mistakes can do alot more harm than that. We did not create the earth or sun, there is no instruction manual for them. This is all hypothetical, not fact. I am all for reducing emmisions of all types and going green but using fear tactics to sell it isn't the way to go.

[polarcap2]

I do drink tap water

[doctordoubt]

nough said

[kitkatborn]

I wish they would stop trying to argue climate change as a reason for cutting back carbon emissions and focus on health as a reason. Lung diseases are skyrocketing and this would be a factual reason to cut carbon emissions.

[LeighAnnes]

Wow...so many trolls on this thread.

[realpolitic]

Yes, exactly.

[FormerReaganite]

professional propagandists perhaps

[wizedollars]

Goldman Sachs has a minority stake in the major carbon selling company. Al Gore owns one of the other such companies. Obama has stock in another. Carbon trading scheme was developed by Enron. This has nothing to do with saving the environment. It's about the elites creating another false bubble to getting even richer off of.

[PrezNoExperience]

you have seen through it. it is all about making gore, obama, and goldie richer

[LeighAnnes]

whackjob

[Unrepentant]

As one of the elites, I can assure you that no one is selling carbon. What is being traded is carbon offsets. If Gore, Goldman and others such as the commodity exchanges like ICE are smart enough to make money off of the trading of carbon offsets, then that's their right in the free enterprise system. Now, it is possible that you are a socialist and that is your right. If that is the case then I suggest that you nationalize the energy producing companies and address the CO2 emissions by closing down the coal fired power plants, but that will cost a whole lot more than the carbon offsets.

Alternatively, you could do nothing and watch the entire southwest become a real desert and the northeast have the same climate as North Carolina has today. Of course the present waterfront real estate would be under water, but that would just open up the real estate market for new waterfront property.

[polarcap2]

and you are dense enough to think that trading carbon offsets is going to cure the emissions problem??? sheesh

[realpolitic]

Really well said!! You said it in terms even science deniers can understand!

[RomeoMD25]

Historical and climatological facts do not support the threat of Global Warming.
During the last "Climatic Optimum", from 700 to 1200 AD, the planet was much warmer
than it is now. This led to a population explosion in Scandinavia (which gave rise to the Viking Age)

Later, during the "Little Ice Age" of 1400 to 1800, Norse settlements in Greenland were wiped out
and Iceland nearly followed.

In the Seventies, Environmentalists were trying to convince us that atmospheric pollution was
going to bring about a new Ice Age, with glaciers in Chicago.

Now, Al Gore is trying to baffle us with his junk science. Your SUV is going to make
300 degree temperatures in Arizona. File Al Gore's "Global Warming" convenient lies

[NoWMDs]

It's not just Al Gore...Look at what most respected scientists are saying...not the ones that graduated from Life University.

[PrezNoExperience]

weather/climate has long cycles.

[polarcap2]

'most respected scientists'????? who? - name just one! and I don't mean a lab scientist who mixes perfume like the ones with IPCC

[PrezNoExperience]

JUNK SCIENCE it is

[Sepulchre]

The science is peer reviewed, by other scientists worldwide. So what about it is junk science? Explain in detail what you mean. Climatology is not my area but I think I may be able to clear up some of your misconceptions about how science is done, as you seem to be unclear on the subject.

[Pilate]

Regurgitating chunks of a George Will editorial do not count as a statement of facts.

[ejr1953]

It's ironic that the Republicans attempted to run this false claim in an advertisement in the heart of one of the religious Christian areas of the country. I guess they think there's an exception to "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" when it comes to grabbing power.

[stunsitfel]

How about my pal Al Gore making mindless profits on false global warming books and sheep like you follow him over the cliff. A power and money grab thanks to you.

[PrezNoExperience]

it seems to be that Huffites are becoming less tolerant of a fumbling obama. the economy shows no signs of recovery. green shoots just means they are seasick from all the movement with no results. take a dramamine and wake us up at the end of four years.

[polarcap2]

and this false claim is.....?

[realpolitic]

The false claim may be that you actually have a mind that works!

[NeoLiberal]

Maybe in the repubs and their fundamentalist base would help us get out of this climate mess by praying to God to stop the temperatures from going up, the world would be saved.

Why won't they pray for the earth?

[stunsitfel]

Our prayers have been answered. The average temperature has been going down since 1998. Go to www.climatedepot.com to learn something real as opposed to listening to dum^as^'s like Gore the Bore.

[PrezNoExperience]

gore the bore. i wish i had coined it. had he been less boring he would have been prez.

[NoWMDs]

They don't want to pray for the earth because they can't wait for the "rapture" to occur which means the Apocalypse must happen....So for them this is a good thing. Hopefully the Rapture will come without the "end of days" and make them all disappear so we can go on with the important issues of the planet.

[309blank]

since i already debunked romeoMD25s senseless trolling earlier i feel compelled to repost this on behalf of the supposed "unfair" taxes and increases in consumer prices that result from ecologically sound policies:

why do all republicans pretend like they understand free markets when they clearly don't? of course. in a perfect market, with no information bias, no externalities, no irrational decisions, no transaction costs, no public goods, no "free rider poblems", no strategic decision making, no pareto-inefficient nash equilibria etc. and all the other nice things i learn about in economics that unfortunately exist in real world markets but not in the models a free market without regulation would work perfectly and efficiently.

but since most republicans have no idea whatsoever how market failures come to exist and why state intervention IMPROVES these markets all they do is rant and rant and make me nauseous.

Pollution is an externality and cap and trade helps internalise the cost for polluting and thus improves the markets. If consumer prices go up this is actually a GOOD thing, because then you will be able to see if you are willing to pay the TRUE price this good tolls on society when produced. the price now reflects the costs and thus we get closer to a functioning free market. but since all you tro//s do is scream socialism i bet this is lost on you.

[PrezNoExperience]

r we escalating in afghanistan?

[309blank]

dems have to be able to turn the stupidity of the republican climate "sceptics" against them. i highly recommend this video and the other ones by the same author.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw&feature=channel

[PrezNoExperience]

climate always changes. there are short and long term cycles. nothing new here. some caused by dinosaurs like obama