We're having a tough time wrapping our brain around the Heartland Institute's three-day "International Conference on Climate Change" that ended yesterday in New York City. Based on what we've read, "exasperated" might be the best word to describe our state of mind.

Actually, the fact that we are reading lots about this conference is in itself a part of the problem. But let's back up for a moment. The Heartland Institute describes itself as a public policy think tank that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems. If those solutions include supporting tobacco companies, taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil and promoting the idea that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, then yes, mission accomplished.

The scientists at RealClimate slammed this week's event from the get-go, noting the astonishing number of ways that the meeting was unlike any other scientific conference. The list includes:

• Offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk calling global warming into question.
• Allowing financial sponsors to select speakers, as opposed to an independent scientific committee.
• Bribing all elected officials with a free stay at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan if they attended.

But perhaps most noteworthy is how the Heartland Institute promoted this "scientific" conference:

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

Now despite this odd mission statement, the conservative media took it upon themselves to spread the message that no one in the liberal/alarmist mainstream media would be paying attention because of their bias against global warming skeptics.

We'll start with CNN's Glenn Beck, who said on this program that "After all, if this were a traditional gathering of global warming alarmists, the media would be everywhere. But, since it’s full of hundreds of credible, mainstream scientists who happen to disagree with their peers, it's completely ignored."

Steve Doocy of Fox News chimed in as well, saying "most media outlets, the mainstream media, only cover Al Gore's earth has a fever perspective."

We could go on, but you get the point. The only problem for Beck and friends is that the "mainstream" media -- perhaps against its better judgment -- did cover this conference in a way that was as surprising to us as it was to the smug cable news pundits. Their hypothesis was blown to hell.

We'd have been happier if the conservatives had been right about the reticence of print and broadcast outlets to cover this sham of a conference. We thought the mainstream press had long ago reached the point where it could focus on reporting about solutions to this problem, not on whether there is a problem. The surprising guilty parties included the Washington Post, New York Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Baltimore Sun, among many others.

While it's true most of these report about the conference pointed out its many problems, we're pretty sure that the Heartland Institute adheres to the philosophy that any press is good press, which makes this a winning week for them.

Long story short, we're kind of torn about it all. Do we castigate the mainstream press for affording such coverage to something that doesn't deserve it, or do we applaud them for pointing out the flaws and unintentional comedy of the conference? Obviously it's a Catch-22.

Luckily we have Andy Revkin, who blogged and wrote about the event for the New York Times, nicely articulating his conflicted feelings about doing so.

And unlike Glenn Beck, Revkin actually attended the conference, which means he was able to give us this wonderful nugget: "The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so."

Again, that's nineteen scientists. But to be fair, we should mention that 19 equals "hundreds" in Glenn Beck's world.