Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt notes that despite all of the media hoopla, Earth Hour resulted in “no significant fall in power usage.” Bolt makes the conclusion after a review of power usage from Australia’s National Electricity Market Management Company.He notes:

The organisers will say never mind, this was about raising awareness (although not of raising awareness of the facts). But here’s the awareness it should raise: how difficult it is to get even a tiny cut in just electricity use for one lousy hour, in a country responsible for just 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions. And then think what the Rudd Government is promising: a 60 per cent cut in all emissions, all year. And it’s to be matched by every country around the world.

Maybe Gore will need more than $300 million to light this candle.

The big news this morning, of course, is the announcement that Gore’s gasbag has $300 million in hot air funding to scare the bejeebers out of Americans over global warming. We’ve put calls into every office around DC this morning to figure out if Gore raised the money from Chinese officials, but we couldn’t confirm yet. For now, here are details from the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON – Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.The Alliance for Climate Protection’s “we” campaign will employ online organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from “American Idol” to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” 

Is it just us, or would it be preferable to have a little more reason of John Stuart Mills rather than the simplistic guffaws of Jon Stewart on an issue of this magnitude?

UPDATE (mere moments later): A poignant note from Alan Caruba:

At this point global warming has made Al Gore a famous and wealthy man. He and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize and Hollywood conferred an Oscar on the “documentary” that advances global warming lies. He now enjoys the lifestyle of the ultra-rich.

The “solutions” offered to stop a non-existent global warming include a Gore suggestion that “pollution” be taxed; that there must be a mandated reduction of all carbon dioxide emissions; the instituting of a bogus cap-and-trade credit system for all utilities, manufacturing, transportation, and other activities; biofuels, greater use of energy alternatives such as wind and solar; and ultimately, limits on how much energy people are permitted to use who drive cars, own homes, or run businesses of all kinds.

A letter to the editors of the Cincinnati Enquirer today examines the notion of “consensus” among climate-change scientists. The author specifically points to the recent Heartland conference in New York City to note:

Just the fact that this group convened proves that there is no consensus in the scientific community on this issue. Rather, their findings indicate that modern warming is moderate, mostly naturally occurring, and positively impacts humanity and wildlife. Moreover, they conclude that the IPCC’s predictions of future warming are wildly unreliable, and that the economic costs of trying to “stop global warming” exceed any hypothetical benefits by a factor of 10.

We noted yesterday Al Gore’s vicious attack on those who would deny his edicts on global warming. Part of that attack, reflected elsewhere by the enviro-fundamentalists, involves calling names and belittling anyone who disagrees. So it’s worth clicking over to read Steve Milloy’s column, “Global Smearing” about another such attack:

By any standard, atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer is a remarkably accomplished scientist. But his outspoken questioning of global warming alarmism has just earned him one of the most outrageous mainstream media smear pieces I’ve ever seen.

What’s that old saying? Childish name-calling by any other name is just as ridiculous?

… asks the AP.

This just in!!!

(CBS) Self-avowed “P.R. agent for the planet” Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.    

 … and, you know, there are still those darn folks who refuse to believe Gore created the Internet. Relevant T-shirt sold here.

UPDATE (March 28): Shopfloor’s reaction: “Oh, and by the way? What a jerk.” 

Over at the blog Is It Getting Warmer? Tom Phelps reminds readers that while the heated global warming rhetoric has made it half-way round the world, the science has yet to fully lace up its shoes. Phelps writes:

For instance there is no hard scientific data to indicate a long-term warming trend. Where some would espouse the belief that oceans will rise dramatically as icebergs melt the actual short-term data indicates an air temperature increase of less than a degree.

Additionally there are those who would request data be collected from multiple climate environments to assess the actual temperature variances. This is something that has not been factored into the current Global warming theory.

In was noted in 2007 that efforts in the UK to reduce the impact of their human population on the environment did essentially nothing to actually help in the effort. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – we’ve all heard that before. The ‘action’ was regulation to effect a positive change in CO2 emissions. The ‘reaction’ was no change in spite of increased man-hours, new regulations and general compliance.

You’d think this kind of information would be of more interest to the media, but no such luck …

In The Nation, they’re asking “How Green Is Your Collar” and pondering so-called green jobs. Unions will likely increasingly support green jobs, which they can unionize, but it’s important to note that not all unions are rushing with glee into the great green beyond:

Organized labor worldwide has called for a “just transition” to a low- carbon economy that will not place the burden of change on those who have the misfortune of working in industries that must undergo “green downsizing.” So far little has been done, or even planned, to take care of those like coal miners and power plant workers, who may lose their jobs as a direct effect of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, some of these constituencies and their unions have been among the most outspoken opponents of policies to address global warming.

If carbon trading and/or carbon taxes raise the cost of energy, how will it affect those who already cannot afford to heat their houses or get to work? SEIU’s Marianne McMullen expressed a “visceral reaction to lifestyle environmentalism” that demands consumers pay more for green products–such as energy-efficient light bulbs–when many low-income workers are barely able to make ends meet. And she pointed out that managers are likely to take advantage of environmental pressures to cut or speed up jobs: when recycling receptacles were introduced in offices, janitors often had to empty twice as many bins in the same time for the same pay.

We didn’t want anyone to miss an important item in yesterday’s Investors Business Daily, which takes aim at environmental activists who use shareholder resolutions to attack companies over global warming. As IBD notes, however, the real issue isn’t the environment anymore:

The environmental movement, which has largely become a loose league of global warming hysteria peddlers, is almost rabidly anti-business and tends to be offended by corporate profits.

Think of how they respond when oil companies announce record profits. Take note of the venom they routinely spew toward business and commerce, portraying honest businesses as eco-villains out to despoil the Earth.

Joe Bast, president of the Heartland Institute and one-time ardent environmentalist, has seen it from both sides. He summed up the movement in a speech three years ago: “Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats,” he said. “Protecting the environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities.”

It’s Gordon Brown versus the EU in a biofuels battle, after leading scientists warned that the innovative energy source could exacerbate climate change rather than combat it. The UK Guardian reports:

“If one started to use biofuels … and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane,” Watson said. “It would certainly be a perverse outcome.”

Under the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, all petrol and diesel must contain 2.5% of biofuels from April 1. This is designed to ensure that Britain complies with a 2003 EU directive that 5.75% of petrol and diesel come from renewable sources by 2010.

But scientists have increasingly questioned the sustainability of biofuels, warning that by increasing deforestation the energy source may be contributing to global warming.

Watson’s warning was echoed last night by Professor Sir David King, who recently retired as the government’s chief scientific adviser. He said biofuel quotas should be put on hold until the results were known of a review which has been commissioned by ministers.