Is Live Earth’s Fizzle Beginning of the End of Global Warming Alarmism?

The reviews are in for Saturday’s international effort to save the planet from global warming, and the news isn’t good for folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry sycophants.

From boring acts, to poor attendance, and folks actually leaving early out of sheer frustration, the concerts appear to have failed miserably.

Is this a sign that Al Gore is as poor an event planner as he is a presidential campaigner? Or, is the public’s interest in this issue dropping faster than temperatures in the southern hemisphere?

Before we get there, it is clear that folks in America and Great Britain were less than thrilled with this event as reported by Reuters Sunday (emphasis added throughout):

U.S. and British media were generally underwhelmed on Sunday by Live Earth, the mega-concert organized by former U.S. vice president and green campaigner Al Gore, which, though built on the model of Live Aid and Live 8, created a less positive buzz.

[…]

Several articles examined the green credentials of artists on the day, including Madonna, whose annual "carbon footprint" was estimated at around 100 times the average Briton's.

Hmmm. You mean there's an obvious hypocricy in extraordinarily wealthy stars telling citizens to cut back on their energy usage as they jet around the planet living lives that normal humans could only dream of? Who'd have thought it?

In reality, isn’t that what all of this issue is about? Shouldn’t similar fingers of disdain be pointed at Gore, Crow, David, DiCaprio, and all of these hypocrites who are conceivably richer than ever telling millions nay billions to do as they say but not as they do?

British media seemed to think so:

The News of the World tabloid, Britain's biggest-selling newspaper, detailed estimates of Madonna's carbon emissions from nine houses, a fleet of cars, a private jet and the Confessions tour, calling her a "climate-change catastrophe."

The Sunday Telegraph quoted U.S. reports of her alleged financial links to companies accused of being major polluters.

How delicious. Speaking of the Telegraph:

As global satellite multi-media musical entertainment, Live Earth was just about adequate. As a platform for stadium politics, it was a dismal affair. "Can you help save the earth?" bellowed Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles. Cue muted murmur of support.

"We might be screwed if that's the response," he half-joked.

[…]

The whole tone felt misjudged: Al Gore appeared by satellite, to no great reaction in the stadium, and seemed to be addressing a small audience of native Americans, not seizing the world by the reins.

Hmmm. Al Gore failing to motivate large percentages of people. Shouldn’t be a surprise outside of blue American states, correct?

Yet, what is surprising was Monday’s New York Times article on the subject where one would expect to find a much more glowing response:

Al Gore declared Live Earth “the largest global entertainment event in all of history,” but this seven-continent, multimedia eco-extravaganza was colored by the very complacency it vowed to combat.

[…]

Unlike benefits for world hunger or genocide, celebrity efforts to curb the greenhouse effect backlash into the glass-house effect: People who own Escalades, private jets and McMansions shouldn’t recycle bromides at people who fail to carpool to work. Carbon-offsetting, the newly fashionable practice of compensating for one’s own carbon emissions by paying into a fund to reduce them elsewhere, may be better than nothing, but to some it sounds too much like rich men paying others to take their place in the draft during the Civil War.

Checking that link to make sure this was the Times? I understand.

In the end, what does the reaction to this event tell us? Is a public with a traditionally short attention span growing tired of this issue?

After all, for many here in America, global warming – unfortunately for all the wrong reasons – became a front page story when an agenda driven media blamed Hurricane Katrina on the White House, and tied 2005’s active tropical storm season directly to the climate change bogeyman.

With enough fear being stoked 24/7, the timing of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – along with the media’s free advertising for the film – couldn’t have been better. Suddenly, global warming became a cause celebre.

However, as 2006’s hurricane season fizzled, and a much cooler and snowier than normal April gripped much of the states in 2007, the calamity seemed to be postponed, and the country’s angst might have diminished.

On the other hand, the hypocrisy of the front-men might also be overshadowing the message. It’s one thing for folks to feel charitable when big stars donate their time to get the common man off their couches to raise funds for the poverty-ridden. However, it’s altogether a different issue when the mega-rich are asking regular folk to cut back on their energy use.

This becomes even more absurd when the ringleader and Global Warmingist-in-Chief is identified to have made up to $100 million in the past seven years, and stands to make significantly more if this issue stays in the limelight.

Just how much are regular folks who are scraping to make ends meet, save for their kids’ college costs and their own retirement willing to sacrifice so that Al Gore can become a billionaire?

As the Telegraph pointed out:

Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, woke a lot of people up to the very real and imminent dangers of climate change. But the inconvenient truth of Live Earth is that it was a soulless telethon, with no clarity or drive.

In reality, this is the stony heart of the entire global warming movement: it is soulless with no clarity or drive.

The only thing clear is that those at the helm are making a huge amount of money off of this issue. And, it appears that this was made infinitely clear to millions nay billions across the planet on Saturday.

Now THAT’S an inconvenient truth.