Media Matters takes a close look at the GOP’s energy plan — and surprise! — it is nearly identical to George W. Bush’s policies. While Republicans are no longer held down electorally by the dead weight of Bush’s name on the ballot, it appears as if they continue to be held down by the dead weight of Bush’s (read: Cheney’s) completely backwards ideas on energy policy. I’m not sure what is more disturbing, the GOP’s inability to adopt sensible energy policies or the fact that a Democratic President is bending over backwards to make the GOP’s energy policies seem sensible. Both bode poorly for the future of United States energy policy.

Media Matters Action Network:

Famous climate change denier Lord Christopher Monckton has made headlines this week for calling green protestors “Hitler youth,” and saying those concerned with global warming have killed more people than Hitler.

For Monckton, it seems, making controversial statements is nothing new.

In the January 1987 issue of the conservative American Spectator, he argued that the only way to contain the then-new AIDS epidemic was to create quarantine AIDS patients in internment camp-like facilities.

More on this from AmericaBlog, DeSmogBlog, Raw Story, Open Left and The Lede.

Here is the article:

monckton-aids –

Update — Focus the Nation executive director Garett Brennan asked Monckton about this at the Americans for Prosperity event the other day:

Media Matters:

While discussing the purported “Climategate” emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, Steve Doocy claimed that Jon Stewart “really took a shot at Al Gore,” then aired a clip of Stewart stating, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented.” But Doocy — in a possible violation of a recent Fox News memo on “Quality Control” — did not air Stewart’s subsequent statement in which he said the emails don’t “disprove global warming,” but do offer ammunition to global warming deniers.

Here is the video:

Media Matters:

Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal “Climategate.” But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears.

Read the whole thing.

Media Matters:

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens advanced the claim made by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in SuperFreakonomics — which has recently come under criticism by economists and climate scientists for what they say are distortions in the book’s climate change chapter — that, in Stephens’ words, “sea levels will probably not rise much more than 18 inches by 2100.” However, this claim is apparently based on projections made in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that did not include future changes in ice flow and therefore do not represent recent developments in climate science observations indicating that increased and accelerated ice sheet loss will cause sea levels to rise by more than previously projected.

More here.

Our friends at Media Matters Action Network have just introduced a new website to fight back against the type of smears that Van Jones was a victim of. Please check out the site at SmearBusters.org.

Here is an example of the type of work they are already doing:

Carol Browner Destroyed EPA Computer Files

Know of a smear they should know about? Let them know at smears@mediamattersaction.org.

Brad Johnson explains:

According to Declan McCullagh, a libertarian blogger who works for CBS Interactive, secret Obama administration documents reveal that the cost of clean energy cap-and-trade legislation would be $1,761 per household — despite official estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Energy Information Administration of about a postage stamp a day. Based on Treasury Department documents acquired by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), McCullagh claims that “a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent“.

There are lots of other updates on this story in the Wonk Room piece. Please read the whole thing.

The CBS piece, which can be found here, was later updated with this statement from the Environmental Defense Fund:

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it’s not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable — and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

Clean Energy Works responded to the highly flawed CBS piece with this document:

CBS Piece Response –

Politico’s Ben Smith was also forced to correct his misleading piece on this:

CORRECTION: The League of Conservation Voters’ Navin Nayak points out to me that the documents are a bit less than meets the eye: They refer to a version of the legislation profoundly different than the one that passed. Specifically, the original White House plan had 100% of emissions permits being distributed by auction; the plan that passed has just 15%. “Can you say ‘irrelevant analysis’? It would be like pricing the health care bills currently in front of Congress based on a single-payer system,” he writes.

Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger has now weighed in:

“The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong. Treasury’s analysis is consistent with public analyses by the EIA, EPA, and CBO, and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals. It is time for an honest debate about how to solve a long-term challenge and deliver comprehensive energy reform – not for misrepresentations of the facts.”

More excellent pushback on this from Media Matters, Bill Scher at Blog for Our Future and Pete Altman at NRDC.

Finally, here is the out-of-date FOIA document the original flawed reporting from CBS and Politico was based on:

FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11 –

Update: Kate Sheppard at The Washington Independent catches Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) repeating this lie to the Washington Post.

Transcript below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »