Because Al Gore is not a part of the scientific community and has no relevance to whether anything is happening or not. Any invocation of his name in this debate is simply a sign of severe bias and an attempt to manipulate the argument with emotions instead of facts.

For full disclosure, I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Tell me again how I'm politically rabble rousing against him.

Is it at all possible I'm just calling out hypocrisy when I see it?

It might be relevant if we were talking about carbon credits or some specific policy that Al Gore is involved in, but the rest of the time it's just going to take the discussion in a bad direction.

It may seem like I'm saying 'ignore the problem and it will go away' (the problem being Al Gore's hypocrisy). But there will always be people involved with or supportive of a cause that one can find negative things about. Expecting purity from everybody who just happens to agree with you, especially if they are politicians, means you will be waiting forever before you get anything done.