From Holman Jenkins at the WSJ:

But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.

Isn’t that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?

RELATED:
AL GORE: No, Diane Sawyer, I will not conform my diet to my value system
NY TIMES: Al Gore is amazingly awesome, not at all benefitting personally from his good works
The unsettling nature of an unsettled debate
The new business model: government connections