So the satellite measuring the Earth's emission of heat back into space doesn't count, because he used the analogy of the human body emitting heat to help explain the concept?
He wasn't just using an analogy; he was drawing a direct comparison between the two phenomenon as if they had something in common. The thermodynamics of a living organism and an entire planet are not similar enough that you can draw comparisons between them in order to make points. That's not legitimate.
Please provide support for your claim that his statement about research funding is preposterous.
I don't have to provide statistics to prove he's wrong, the person making the claim is the one who the burden of proof is on, which I suppose in this case is you. He is not a reliable source to cite clearly, as he's shown that he's biased on the subject by political affiliations and other loaded statements. He provided absolutely no evidence at all to back it up, started delving into conspiracy theories afterward, and it seems highly unlikely, why should I believe him? Do you have any evidence or are you just taking his point of view and parroting it back? Did you not read some of the insane thing he's said, namely the communist conspiracy one related to Obama?
The politically motivated scientists didn't railroad all of mainstream science. They falsified data, they abused the peer review process to suppress dissenting scientific studies, and they did a host of other things intended to promote human caused global warming as a crisis while admitting among themselves that the evidence didn't show any human caused global warming. They knew the planet wasn't warming, so they falsified their reports to support their political convictions. They've been named repeatedly in many media sources.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the planet Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
So you're basically saying all of those scientific institutions and academies of science are wrong? Even if the group that was hacked that provided data for the IPCC did falsify data (and the evidence is no where near as clear as you're making it sound, it's still unclear if anything bad has happened, the jury is still out) many of the other academies and institutions ran independent studies and came up with the same conclusion. You make it sound as if all of modern science hinges on a few people's beliefs.
There's a reason people who have attempted scientific opposition to global warming have failed. It's because their conclusions were less supported. That's how science works; people who have better papers win out, it's a very simple marketplace of ideas. Anyone can public a scientific paper and only their methodology can be scrutinized, not the conclusions. The reason why Global Warming is believed to be a well-supported fact is because the majority of scientific institutions have agreed with the research done establishing it and disagreed with the skeptical research; it's not a conspiracy, it's a matter of evidence. Granted, if you only look at biased evidence as it seems you have and never familiarize yourself with the original information and rebuttals it's easy to become a hardline denier (and there is a difference between a denier and a skeptic).
The Finnish documentary supports the above paragraph, regardless of whether or not it has been already covered in this thread.
The Finnish documentary only covers climategate, which only involves one institution. If you want to discredit global warming, there's a lot more studies and groups to slander.
Your attempt to discredit him instead of disprove his points was entirely clear, especially after you mentioned the shooting of messengers previously.
There's a difference between attacking the messenger and discrediting someone who is making statements as a reliable witness. Attacking the messenger is equating a person with a message they're delivering, i.e. making Al Gore into Global Warming, and taking potshots at him in order to attack Global Warming indirectly. The problem with this is, Al Gore is merely transmitting information that other people have established. You can stop believing what Al Gore says and just go directly to his resources; you don't have to trust Al Gore to believe his claims.
Discrediting this guy, however, is far more valid because he doesn't cite his resources in most instances. He applies a good deal of subjective judgment and brushes over the information he does cite without getting into the detail that's necessary to really assess whether he's being fully honest or not. There's no reason to trust him as a reliable witness and plenty of reasons not to.
I don't trust Al Gore either, listening to any one person, especially people who are ideologically or politically motivated is ridiculous. I think Global Warming has validity because the majority of scientists support it. If you don't support it knowing that, then you believe in a conspiracy or lack faith in science, either of which is fine, but at least admit you're anti-intellectual if that's the case so that the argument can shift to something more honest.
Human caused global warming is a fraud, but you want to believe in it, so go ahead. Have a good time paying taxes to solve a crisis that doesn't exist.
I don't know that man-made global warming is real. In science nothing is ever known. They make gambles based on careful research and put stock in ideas based on this. Global Warming is not a fact; it's a scientific fact, and a scientific fact is not absolute truth. Science deals in statistical probabilities, you never "know" anything perfectly, it's just a matter of likelihood.
But in your final message there you exposed a few holes in your way of thinking:
1) You're treating this as a matter of certainty and fact, which means you're not thinking scientifically or even being skeptical. It's skeptical to ask for explanations, justifications, and try and poke holes through things rationally. Words like fraud are not skeptical or reasonable, but are extremist statements.
2) The tax comment exposes a political ideology.
So whatever, we're going to argue in circles here and it won't matter, because it seems like you've taken an evangelical position on the matter.