the laws of physics care not what Al Gore thinks or does.
it does not matter if it is Al Gore, JP Morgan & Co., or Colonel Fucking Sanders who points it out: internalising the market externalities around the burning of fossil fuels is the single greatest tool we have to do something about this before it is too late.
The problem with your argument is that, while what politicians do is irrelevant to *science*, coming up with a solution to the physical problem is part of a *political* process, where we can of course discuss whether Al Gore, JP Morgan & Co, etc are working in the our (the unprivileged) interests.
For example, to take things to an extreme as an illustration, science tells us that if we kill everyone on Earth, the warming will be stopped. Shall we do that? Going down the ever slippery slope, we could ask what if the solution entails millions of people suffering more than they already do? What if under developed countries somehow bear an unfair burden of the problem? What if rich people receive unjust benefits from exploiting the "carbon offset" markets, at the expense of the sufferings of others? What if these political interests obscure and cast the supposedly objective *science* in doubt? What if people who don't have a PhD refuse to believe that more suffering *now* and making fat bastards rich is not a cost they would rather bear to avoid a supposed catastrophe that may happen in 50 years?
It's not just science. The physics is the easy part.