Here's what seems to me a relatively even-handed left-leaning view of the article.
Ok, a summary of me, completely on topic as defined.
Does this article convince me that Gore is a hypocrite? No. It doesn't provide nearly enough detail to do so. Does it raise some issues of concern? Yes, but only one. The other two supposes indications of hypocrisy do not support the case and are irrelevant straw men.
So, then, I ask what is the purpose of the author in exposing this supposed hypocrisy? If it is to encourage Gore into a stronger commitment to his reputed ideals then I can support that. If it is (as seems likely based on other writings by the same author) to cast a cloud on the scientific evidence of global warming by casting a cloud over the messenger then the article is simply a worthless rhetorical trick.