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

[damilitantone]

Folks are mentioning climatedepot.com as a source for environmental issues. The site is run by Marc Morano. Who is Marano" He's not exactly a nonpartisan source of information. From Source Watch:

Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-envir­onmentalis­m think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center. CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazi­ne."[1]

[dennisrs]

An Anti-envir­onmentalis­m think tank I don't think so.
Maybe anti-envir­onmentalis­t who's un-proven ideas are so costly the can bankrupt nations. Just just because someone doesn't believe in Man Made Climate Change doesn't make them anti-environment a pro-polluter. You all want to make the USA do all these changes when the real polluters right are China and India and these rules don't even effect them. Makes no sense especially when it's been estimated it will only change CO2 output by around .02% but the costs will be extreme.

[damilitantone]

The US can do its part to clean up our house. just because China and India have problems doesn't absolve us of our own responsibility to the environment.

[IslandGyal]

----------­----------­---------D­id you all hear the Wasilla hillbilly is stepping down as Gov on July 25th?

[coliwabl]

She's preparing to run for Pres.

[IslandGyal]

Yes, but what does that tell you about her intellectual capacity, that she couldn't finish ONE term, as she needs to possibly go and seclude herself to bone up on the fundamentals.

[stunsitfel]

Go to www.climatedepot.com for a better understanding that CO2 levels are not a big deal and that the earth has been cooling since 1998.

Al Gore is just making a minor mint off the freaks running around saying the sky is falling.

[Polarcap]

good to meet someone on this lefty blog that has some education and has done some legitimate research - we are a very small minority on this fact-free site

[StansDad]

yes his one source is quite convincing isn't it. Lets just deplete our resources guys, the website said it was cool

[FormerReaganite]

And then why would you want to have a discussion with us leftie liberal welfare queens (I believe you used the term "freaks") since none of us have any sort of education beyond the seventh-grade? I suppose you are a PhD in climate science? Methinks a paid lobbyist for a big oil company, eh?

[damilitantone]

Try again the guy who runs the site is in the pocket of the ultra-right.

[lenoirlady]

No, not at all. We ARE saying the planet Earthj is warming. Science. Think. Science.

[FormerReaganite]

You are asking a conservative to *think* (hahaha) *science* ? (hohoho)

Thanks. I needed a good deep laugh.

[rfshunt]

Oy, the "it's been cooling since 98" horse-manure again.

1998 was a particularly hot year. The years since have been nearly as hot. What you, and that paid shill of a website, are calling "cooling" is statistical noise.

"...from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[BrettnCalgary]

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php

It saves a lot of typing to link to this rebuttal.

[dennisrs]

We are going to start a carbon credit company -- we'll plant a pine tree for everyone who is is feeling too guilty about all that CO2 they are exhaling. Price to determined later.

[fairtaxplease]

FormerReaganite you keep talking about other factors in global warming but you wont tell me what you think those other factors are. why is this the case? if you want to debate, lets have it.

[Voyagers]

77% of CO2 emissions are man-made.

http://www.wri.org/image/view/9529/_original

If that isn't an 'un-natural' balance, what is?

[fairtaxplease]

im sorry, perhaps you did not understand the question.

[Polarcap]

yes, humans - and animals - exhale CO2

[stunsitfel]

Oh my. So cows farting cause global warming.

[FormerReaganite]

See my post at 3:21 PM

[fairtaxplease]

dont see it, repost it.

[FormerReaganite]

This is off topic, but what is a "fair tax" to you? Please point me to a discussion (on Huffpost) where I can debate you on this, not here though, as this thread is about *factual* global warming (not lobbyist propaganda-filled one-up-manship)

[FormerReaganite]

just below your 2:51 pm post, sir.

[FormerReaganite]

OOPs just below your 2:54pm post

[fairtaxplease]

fine, you want to get to the bottom of this and prove all us tinfoil hat skeptics wrong?

then demand a debate be held on this subject, we can have ABC host a debate just like they did their healthcare special.

[Polarcap]

that was no debate - that was an infomercial

[FormerReaganite]

What exactly are you debating, anyway? Do you even know what you are debating?

[rfshunt]

I say the stork is what brings children. Other people disagree and say children are produced by intercourse between a man and a woman.

Let's use national network TV time to have a debate about it, shall we?

[schicklett3]

Finally - we have dignity from a news station.

[w&cheneysuck]

I agree!

[stunsitfel]

Another cbs station siding with BO and not stating the reason why. How is this news worthy?

[lenoirlady]

How's this for news wrothy?? Your Wassilla Mama just quit.. We are all over joyed that THIS may be President Obama's opposition. YES!!!!

[Polarcap]

was Rather there?

[fairtaxplease]

FormerReaganite I'm a Fan of FormerReaganite I'm a fan of this user permalink
They only speak of CO2, nothing else. There are other factors involved in warming (mitigating effects) which are conveniently not even mentioned. And they offer no explanation for their theory. Not good science.
==========­==========­===

no explanation for their theory? because its not a theory, they explain what the data tells them, its fact not theory.

other factors? like what?

[FormerReaganite]

Question for you: Is the rising CO2 in the past 100 years *lagging* temperature rise? Or the other way around? Aren't you ignoring a multitude of other factors, like carbon soot (causing warming), volcanoes (causing cooling), even the temperature "drop" in the 1940s, which could that have something to do with WWII, and all of the bombs going off, sending large amounts of fine particulates into the air (which induces cooling)

You see, it is complicated. Fluctuating temp /greenhouse gas /particulates /solar activity: are all involved. Don't draw conclusions from one thing alone. Gore should not either.

[Polarcap]

a bit of science for elfish - and all other Gore-scam followers:

Sea ice data:

2009 Extent: 5.8 million sq m - Concentration: 3.3 million sq m
1997 Extent: 4.3 million sq m - Concentration: 2.7 million sq m
1980 Extent: 4.7 million sq m - Concentration: 3.0 million sq m

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Interior ice is also increasing. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the Antarctic have actually fallen by 1�F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up, and Al Gore, the alarmists and the main stream media have been crying near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part).

[stunsitfel]

GREAT POSTING!!!! This needs to be sent to all sentators on the Cap and TAX.

[stunsitfel]

sp-senators

[KimberlyKay]

Um.... when it gets warmer, snow increases, but so does instability of the ice.
Have you checked out the pictures of the shrinking ice sheets and glaciers around this world, or are such photographs two defeated by your statistics?

Also, might be nice if you provided a link to such detailed analysis and claims.

[Polarcap]

link is US govt - NOAA

[dennisrs]

K-Kay Here's a link that differs on your statement . Where is your link?

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/glaciers-and-sea-ice-melting-or-growing.html

[FormerReaganite]

Did you look at the charts??? The CO2 and temperature graphs always show up /down fluctuations (kind of like the stock market does) This is because nature is complicated. There are a lot of known and unknown variables affecting the climate. You denialists act as though there is nothing else but CO2. Try to see the big picture, and not concentrate on the parts. And when you can produce proof (of your denialist propaganda) from a *majority* of scientists (not just a small minority of PAID coal-oil lobbyist scientists,) then you may gain some credibility. Until then, please just go away.

[dennisrs]

The charts from the video show the temp going up and years later here comes the co2 rising, sometimes as much 800 years later. How do you explain that former reaganite? This was brought up by scientist in the UK when they saw Gores move Inconvenient Lie oopps I mean Inconvenient Truth. That was why the were stopping the showing of it to to school kids plus the many other Inconvenient errors in his movie.

[Voyagers]

How global warming can trigger an ice age.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2798

[dennisrs]

So Global Warming cause Global Freezing?

[jymfrancais]

its not like the republicans beleive in science anyway.

[Polarcap]

how about the science in the post above? or do you just believe in astrology like the rest of the denm8craps?

[FormerReaganite]

Nancy Reagan actually did follow astrology. Must be what 'ol Ronnie used to run the country into the ground, eh?

[FormerReaganite]

"denm8craps"

Here we go, name-calling: the first sign of desperation in a debate...

[rfshunt]

I've indicated what the scientists are actually saying, as opposed to the lies you posted, in the thread above

[worldview47]

(deep sigh) Pardon me sir, but could you explain the "denm8craps"?

[fairtaxplease]

CherokeeGirl I'm a Fan of CherokeeGirl I'm a fan of this user permalink
dude, scientists took long tubular samples of the glaciers. They tell a very compelling story about Co2 levels over thousands of years.
==========­==========­===

yes they do tell a story but its not the one Al Gore wants yout o believe. Gore claims temperatures rose on increasing co2 levels but it has since been proven the opposite, co2 levels rose due to an increase in temperature. this is science fact.

[CherokeeGirl]

reliable source?

[fairtaxplease]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

Al Gore Debates Global Warming

[FormerReaganite]

"co2 levels rose due to an increase in temperature. this is science fact."

That is convoluted crap. It proposes that CO2 "bubbles out" of the ocean.
The rising CO2 level is primarily due to deforestation and anthropogenic emissions.
Nice try, PAID coal-oil lobbyist.

[fairtaxplease]

watch the video i posted, it has been PROVEN, INDISPUTABLE FACT that co2 levels lag temperature by hundreds of years.

this is the main reason, the one fact that keeps Al Gore from debateing climate change, ever wonder why none of the UN scientists will debate skeptics? DEBATE IS OVER? there never was a debate, Gore and his cronies refuse debate.

[dennisrs]

You talked about name calling you sure do your fair share of insulting people here FormerReagan.

[lenoirlady]

Where'd you get that?

[stunsitfel]

The station did not say why they did not air the Republican ad........­.how about the station is CBS. The backbone of the Dims.

[FightTheLies]

That's MSNBC (Joe and Mika excluded). Just like Fox is the propoganda machine for the righties.

[CherokeeGirl]

so true. I've been emailing Ed Schultz of The Ed Show about that and he seems to have made some changes, but still has one rep from the right there on his panel. Baby steps.

If I had my way I'd clean up the news so we were delivered real unbiased facts.

[stunsitfel]

Mika is a rightie? Her dad was in the Carter administration. See was raise with leftists.

I will go along with the statement on FOX. If the other stations and newspapers were even close to the middle they would not have a job.

[Polarcap]

CBS too - remember that bonehead Rather?

[stunsitfel]

I just threw up.

[fairtaxplease]

the bottom line is you cant reduce emissions significantly until we can replace the energy we get from coal. if it was as easy as saying - hey you cant pollute then why not just put hard caps on coal emissions? by very fact that they want a cap and trade system we can see that right now there is no real plan to do away with coal and replace it because if there was there would be no need for carbon credits, we could just put hard caps on coal.

[CherokeeGirl]

I think they should be thankful they don't have to cleanup immediately instead of playing a game with credits. Obama's too nice. Let's get going on the sun and wind energy and alot of this just becomes old outdated energy business models trying to mislead and twist their way out of not being put out of existence.

[fairtaxplease]

wind and solar cannot produce enough energy to replace coal, or even put a dent in our energy demands for that matter.

[Lasnoe]

where is the error..... what a crock.....­.

Cap and trade will skyrocket electricity bills..... do you guys know where most of our electricity comes from???? coal! cam and trade will cripple the coal industry thus making electricity more scarce thus pushing electricity prices up!!!!!!

But of course the media/networks have no bias..... they'll run any ad they agree with!

[fairtaxplease]

about 50% of our energy comes from coal and there is no plan to reduce that number so the whole thing is a scam.

[Lasnoe]

really? Obama has also said he wants the coal industry to go out of business..­... if it becomes more expensive to produce 50% of our electricit­y..... you don't think at least 50% of our electricity will be more expensive?????

where's the scam here..... the scam here is taxing companies for CO2 production pretending its going to stop/rever­se/prevent global warming or climate change....­. there's the scam buddy!

[CherokeeGirl]

where is your reliable source that says that energy bills will skyrocket? I think the offset of wind and sun technology will buffer that from happening. This has to be done, if coal's not clean, someone needs to find a way to make it so or it is an outdated mode of energy. People can be retrained.

[fairtaxplease]

wind and solar are not reliable and cannot produce enough energy to even dent our consumption needs if we take away coal.

[lenoirlady]

Focus! Focus! h o w w i l l i t c a u s e s k y r o c k e t i n g e l e c t r i c b i l l s...... Think now - focus!

[Lasnoe]

less electricity will be produced..­.....

think and Focus! Focus!....­. how does the price of something go up when you have less and less of it??? You didn't have to be awake in your econ 101 classes to know this.... all you really need to do is look at ebay!

[CherokeeGirl]

People, I'm telling you, the earth's climate is nothing to mess around with. Anybody who thinks the smoke that's billowed into the air over the past hundred years hasn't made global warming more rapidly happen than it normally would, is not looking at the facts.

We've got to stop pouring poison into the atmospher, it's as simple as that. The right is trying to scare us again, cuz that's all they have to try to save thier evil empire of money grabbing hoarding buttheads.

I'm telling ya right now, there will be consequences and with all the earthquakes and other predictions like the shift of the earth on it's axis (which also happens naturally every several thousand years) and those who don't know how to grow their own food and survive without power and necessities will be in a big heap of trouble.

This bill is weak, in my opinion. But it's a step in the right direction. Don't be bamboozled at the expense of the future of our people and the planet. It's too important to avoid the facts.

[FormerReaganite]

Agreed. This bill is really "too-littl­e-too-late­," but at least it points us in the correct direction. To continue on with the perilous course we have been on under the prior president, would have amounted to even larger future crises, not only warming, but wars with unstable oil-producing countries. (Oops... I guess I should say that we have already started on the "war: solution to all of our domestic problems."­) Bush thought he could whip 'em all into shape, and they would love and respect us for it. And how did that turn out?

[CherokeeGirl]

exActly :)

[fairtaxplease]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

heres the interview, listen for yourself.

[fairtaxplease]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_ndTarALI&NR=1

here is even more of the interview.

he says this will benefit us in the long run. how so when we dont have anything to replace our coal energy with and the left wont let us build nuclear?

[CherokeeGirl]

if your bill averages $80/month it may go up to $110/month. Everybody be very afraid.

[Voyagers]

Just one question:

What will we do with the RADIOACTIVE waste?

Why won't ANYBODY answer that question..­.

[FightTheLies]

So in a weird way you agree with us. Build more wind turbines (the energy source Palin turned down money for) so we can have cheap renewable energy.