Everyone's bashing Gore because they have nothing else to bash. His message is true in "An Inconvenient Truth" and, as they can't pick apart the science, they feel they have to try to discredit the man. It's a sorry state the "denier" movement is in. They're grasping at straws and are on their last breaths.

I am bewildered by this, too. But it seems that anyone who has any success at appealing to the average person re: AGW is labelled self-serving, an egomaniac, etc. People like Al Gore and David Suzuki are able to express complex scientific information in a way that people can understand, and for this they are reviled. Suzuki has been clarifying science for audiences for a staggering 28 years on The Nature of Things, and I think he does a great job. I still mourn the loss of Carl Sagan, who had a similar talent for drawing popular attention to scientific issues and a passion for engaging people. He recognized AGW as a serious issue, and had he not died 11 years ago he would no doubt be speaking out with Gore, Suzuki, Hansen and their many colleagues. Would Sagan have been subjected to this kind of personal attack?

Just as a matter of interest, I wonder to what use the speaking fee is put? The "issue" of how much energy Gore's house uses evaporated fairly quickly when it was itemized and clarified.