Many possibilities spring to mind as to what members might ask former Vice President Al Gore during his appearances Wednesday before the House Energy Committee and Senate Environment and Public Works Committees. Before one gets too optimistic, however, bear in mind Gore’s newfound reluctance to actually take questions (see debate-refusal clock on the latter, and scroll down here for yet another example). Instead, we should expect be treated to evasive non-responses designed to run out each member’s five-minute allotment. The respective chairmen – especially Barbara Boxer – are likely more willing to gavel down challengers more readily than they would bark at Gore for going over-time. As such, the wise member will use his or her own time to enumerate inconvenient truths about Mr. Gore’s scientific and political claims.

Suggested topics one might raise during such mini-speeches include:

* It is nice to see Mr. Gore’s newfound respect for Congress’s role in these matters. Recall that in July 2001 the Senate, noting how the Clinton-Gore administration betrayed no intention to seek Article II, Section 2 “advice”, offered unsolicited instruction 95-0 that the administration not agree to any treaty meeting the description of the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, an intervening event was an August 4 meeting in the Oval Office with Enron’s Ken Lay and (then-) Sir John Browne of BP, instructing them that indeed the U.S. should ignore the Senate’s advice and agree to Kyoto. We know who won.

On December 11, 1997, the day his administration agreed to Kyoto thereby manifesting its preference for Enron’s advice over the Senate’s, Gore is quoted by CNN.com as saying, “‘As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort,’ Gore declared.” (emphasis added)

This is what Bush noted when announcing continuation of this Clinton-Gore policy. Nothing has changed as regards this condition except that the exempt majority of the world has hardened its position against agreeing to any Kyoto-style limits.

* Presidents sign treaties. Senates ratify them. And Congresses enact legislation. The latter two have done nothing relevant since the U.S. signed Kyoto. So everything is Bush’s fault, despite the above reminder.

This begs the question of what, precisely, prompts Gore’s persistent insistence of Bush’s supposed Kyoto irresponsibility in slavish service of special interests? Does he suggest that Bush do a better job of negotiating than Gore and sign a new treaty, even though a signed offer remains on the table, the only substantive thing about which Bush could do is unsign it? Should he instead ask the Senate to ratify Kyoto, as dictated by protocol (if not the Constitution)? What about Gore’s prescribed condition has changed since the Clinton-Gore administration spent 801 days not making this push before skipping town?

Like his call for a “World War II-style commitment” that he intimates means switching out some light bulbs and stringing a clothesline, Gore’s complaints about Bush and Kyoto remain quite vague, and equally hypocritical.