No Live Earth in Camp 22.

Liberty Scott explains why the "international act of mutual onanism" that was Live Earth held no interest for him. There are worse things on earth, Horatio, than CO2 emissions, and Camp 22 is one of them. Read on here for more.

UPDATE 1: Didn't have much interest for Lubos either, it seems.

Hundreds of musicians have demonstrated that there is much stronger consensus about global warming among rock musicians than among scientists: all of them want to look like saviors of the world while all of them want to live in the most expensive hotels and mansions and to fly in private jets. All of them may be used as textbook examples of hypocrites.

They should better try to be saviors of modern music because saviors of the world usually cause a lot of troubles if they're morons at the same moment, and sometimes even if they're not.

Not much interest either from Martin Durkin:

I think [the concert is] a combination of hypocrisy and ignorance because the idea of Al Gore and Madonna telling us the world is consuming too much makes the mind boggle. But ignorance because so few people are prepared to actually look at the evidence and there is so much evidence now that flatly contradicts the notion of man-made global warming. I think this is political prejudice rather than science.

But we have learned something, notes Lubos.

We have ... learned from organizers of the concert in South Africa that the poor attendance in Johannesburg was caused by global warming, too, because extreme cold weather is always caused by global warming, much like normal weather in the other cities.

UPDATE 2: Jim Manzi (that's Manzi, Manzi, Global Warming Pansy to you) suggests conservatives have "sidelined" themselves in the global warming "debate" when they should instead "propose policies that are appropriately optimistic, science-based, and low-cost." Speaking on behalf of conservatives, Prodos responds with the respective policies:

My “Optimistic” = “Man made global warming is just Green Poppycock. Industry and Science are not destroying the planet. Enjoy life.”
My “Science-based” = “There is no evidence of destructive human induced global warming. If we find any we’ll let you know.”
My “Low-cost” = “We’re opening up the energy market. We’re closing down the Greenocracy. We’re removing Green funding and Green agencies.”

Sounds good to me. And positively optimistic.

UPDATE 3: George Reisman reminds us that Al Bore's bore-fest is in the name of calling for

"an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth." [Italics are George's. Quote is Al's.]

Responds George:

The “global warming pollution” you talk about is the production of the energy that lights, heats, and air conditions our homes, powers our automobiles, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships, runs our refrigerators, television sets, computers, and all other electrical appliances, and powers the machinery and equipment that produces all of the goods we buy. You want to cut this by a staggering percentage!

...You feel free to make your calls for unprecedented economic destruction from the comfort of a home that consumes more than 20 times the electricity of the average American home...

If you understood in personal terms what you are talking about, you would know that your supposedly glorious “spiritual challenge” is a call for Mrs. Gore to scrub your laundry (if you would still have any) against a rock on the bank of a river, the way women do in Third World countries. That’s the actual meaning and measure of your “spiritual challenge.” You want to turn our glorious economic system into a poverty-stricken hell-hole.

You need to calm down, Mr. Gore, and give yourself and the world a rest. Along the way, you should try to understand the extent and depth of the horrors you want to unleash.

UPDATE 4: If carbon offsetting is good enough from Al Bore, then it's good enough for fundraising. Martin Durkin's colleagues at Sp!ked have the perfect plan for "carbon offsetting," explained at their nifty online Hot Air Calculator:

More and more noxious fumes are being emitted into our political and cultural environment.
Did you know that every time a politician, quango leader or green spokesman opens his or her mouth to speak, hot air escapes and damages our surroundings? Their fossilised views—whether they’re demanding more austerity or tougher security measures that eat away at our liberties—are leaving behind an ugly manmade bootprint on our world.
Future generations are particularly at risk from this hot air—if today’s political pollution is left unchecked, our children’s children’s children will live in a drab world of low horizons, belt-tightening, eco-towns and No Flying.
But do not fear! We can do something about today’s doom-mongering before it reaches boiling point. You can offset the world’s hot air by donating to spiked.
For every pound, dollar, Euro or yen you give, we promise to challenge the miserabilist, miserly and curmudgeonly outlook of today’s illiberal powers-that-be.
It’s easy: simply tot up how much bullshit you have heard in the past month, and send us the corresponding amount of money to keep such bullshit in check.
All donations are gratefully received—and you have my word that your money will be well spent on cultivating virtual hectares of sensible comment to counter the spread of toxic ideas across society.
Brendan O’Neill, editor

Memo to the Libz executive: Perhaps Libz could offer a similarly sensible carbon offsetting system?

UPDATE 5: 'Live Earth's Gross Groupies,' from Junk Science, and 'Indulgences,' from Cox and Forkum:

UPDATE 6: Everyone's having a go at Borestock. This time it's Tim Blair's turn:

We don’t watch global warming TV shows, we don’t turn off our lights, we don’t read warmenist blogs, we don’t buy stupid hybrid cars, and we don’t watch climate change concerts...

Apparently it was more like global boring, with the concert falling flat apparently in Britain, Australia, South Africa and Brazil. And in the US, notes News.Com,

The main three hour American TV broadcast on NBC averaged a meagre 2.7 million viewers, ranking as the least-watched US program on Saturday night and falling below NBC’s summer prime-time Saturday average, Nielsen Media Research reported today.

"That’s one way of reducing global carbon output," says Tim: "Produce TV shows nobody wants to see."