If Al Gore was saying that cutting down carbon emissions will instantaneously restore all the effects of carbon pollution t5hat are already predicted he was indeed being remarkably naive and unscientific.

My understanding is that he has been saying is that a major reduction in carbon emissions is essential if we are to avoid much worse things happening within our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children.

That isn't the same thing at all. And it does indeed qualify as "an inconvenient truth". Or how about "an inconvenient strong possibility", bb?

In any case it's a fairly academic issue, since the likelihood of our energy hungry culture making the kind of reductions that appear highly advisable is pretty remote, at least until New York and London are under water, so getting ready to cope with the impending problems is clearly a high priority. Retrospectively I suppose there'd be arguments as to whether the blame for the catastrophe should be laid at the door of the older generation and their politicians, or on the Sun - but so what?