Have you noticed that most of the articles you see that are skeptical about man’s role in climate change come from foreign publications based in countries like Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada?

Why do you think that is?

Are the American press too emotionally attached to the issue -- and, in particular, the chief spokesman, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore -- to even consider the possibility that the debate isn't over, and that their role as journalists is supposed to be to further discussion rather than squelch it?

While you ponder, an editor for Australia’s The Age, Melanie Griffin, published an absolutely delicious article Sunday slamming the upcoming "Live Earth" concerts about to be thrown in the name of global warming alarmism (emphasis added throughout):

Our $99 concert tickets, which I am sure will be printed on recycled paper, do not go towards any concrete measures to halt global warming, or to repair any damage done to the Earth. The proceeds don't go directly to purchasing solar batteries for anyone or subsidising public transport anywhere. The event just goes to raising awareness. And right now?

That's not only a waste of time but a gross indulgence. It's just a green rubber bracelet to string on your arm next to the white rubber band that will magically make poverty history, and the yellow one that cures cancer.

How delicious. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if American media could be so honest about this event rather than sycophantly gushing over the host?

Regardless of the answer, Griffin was just getting warmed up:

Instead, the funds from this fun fest will underwrite yet another foundation dedicated to raising our greenie consciousness.

It strikes me that the amount of goodwill, money, political nous and energy being funnelled into these concerts could be put to better use lobbying some of the sponsors - and participants - to rein in their own consumption.

Yes, I know the organisers of the nine concerts on six continents will be planting another Amazon of trees to offset the carbon spewed forth by all the amplifiers and lights and hydraulics and TV cameras and private jets required to broadcast Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers and Duran Duran and the reunited Crowded House to the world, singing that green is good.

But it will be years before any of those tree plantations can offset the damage of a massive ego-boosting exercise that is not only redundant, but harmful.

Exactly, Melanie. But, as you point out, the hypocrisy runs even deeper:

It's also about us, the punters who troop along to these benefits that we might stand up and be counted. Being counted is not worth squat. We might catch public transport to these gigs, although flying to Sydney to see Neil Finn at the Opera House is not a very green way to go. But we're still colluding in a massive production of greenhouse gases in order to raise awareness of the damage done.

It's worse than pointless.

Dr Keith Tovey, a climate change researcher from the University of East Anglia, estimated that the Wembley concert alone could churn out 3000 tonnes of carbon.

Exactly. But, Griffin’s concluding questions are what should be asked by America’s media, but never will be:

What if all those rock groups donated serious cash to a fund that subsidised alternative energy sources?

What if everyone stayed home?

What if all 2 billion turned off the TV and did something unplugged for once?

Yes, Melanie, what if?

Of course, the Global Warmingest-in-Chief wouldn’t be able to take to the stage to cheering international crowds that way. And, in the end, although our media refuse to recognize it, that’s what it’s all about.

You put your left wing in, you put your left wing out…

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.