My 2cents are that what's important about Al Gore, "algore," "Fatso," "Savior," "Veepy-Jeepy," "Tipper's Bitch," or whatever you want to call him is that he has successfully made the notion of humanity engaging collectively for undeniably positive global change a major talking point. Whether you're talking for or against it, whether you're Tucker "Fucker" Carlson or Jon Stewart, you're talking about it, and that would never, ever, be happening if some otherwise-anonymous scientist was standing on the steps of his lab, shouting into the echoing void that we're all in big trouble.
As for the moral aspect of the debate, it used to be that evangelicals spent much of their energy trying to get Congress to legislate who can and cannot love each other. The fact that they now devote at least a bit of that influence to the environment must, I think, be viewed as positive, for the simple fact that it cultivates a spirit of inclusiveness, rather than exclusivity. Anytime America is thinking in terms of "how can WE solve this problem" rather than "how can THEY solve THEIR problem," this naive ex-cabdriver believes we're on the right track. Yes, America has a poisonous culture of celebrity worship, and yes, "Ali G" is exploiting it. But, I have a hard time seeing who loses.
