Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. The Guardian is a media outlet, not a scientific one. Both politicians and the media often have trouble accurately representing scientific consensus. As such, it is advised to handle with care when reading interpretations of the science by second hand, non-scientific sources, and further is is generally ill advised to use these second hand interpretations as evidence of flaws in the science.
Additionally, climate science is a fairly large field. There will always be individuals making fringe opinions that are contradicted by a large body of evidence. While "a New Ice Age" was all the rage in the media back in the '70s, even back in the early days of this type of science, a warming trend was by far the more common prediction:
Nobody here is sourcing science papers, so why should I?
It's always like this:
Paper says scientist said the world will end - See see, the world will end.
The world didn't end - That was just the paper interpretation of the scientist. No science's fault.
This is nonsense.
God bless You.
When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019
There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?