This is an obvious red herring. It's irrelevant ad hominem that is attempting to divert attention away from the debate and it's seriousness. I wouldn't say this all that much if this was but mentioned, but this is all you use Jefferson. And you further take it in an attempt at rationalizing the opposition to the acknowledgment of global warming. Which really doesn't make much sense.

But as for the validity of the article you present, it holds little water. Even if you're able to produce valid figures about the carbon emissions caused by energy consumption of Al Gore's home (*sigh* I can't believe I'm debating this), and including the emissions caused by his transportation, he says he was still able to neutralize those emissions by buying "carbon offsets" by investing in projects and technologies that seek to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. He's even gone to the extent to offset 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions used in all transportation in promotion of his film. 100% of the profits of his book and movie goes to a bipartisan campaign in educating people about global warming.

I don't think he's saying that everyone should cease all carbon dioxide-emitting activities to a halt. That would be literally impossible, not only for your livelihood but you release CO2 when you breath. He's just saying that while we partake in energy-saving activities (such as getting compact fluorescent light bulbs, reducing home heating and cooling, etc.), we should invest in programs that replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources by purchasing "carbon offsets", thereby theoretically neutralizing your emissions.

In this regard (that is, what he is actually saying), he isn't hypocritical but has taken all of these steps himself.

Not that it matters to the debate though...