There are two different subjects in your thread : global warming and space development. Both related by our civilization's sustainability.
It is probably a bait but as your were clever enough to be polite and I do believe my answer has a chance to enlight some of the people who'll read it:
Are people trying to take advantage of climate chance to acquire fame or money? Yes, as in every other topic.
Are some of these people scammers? Yes, as in every other topic.
Are scammer a proof that a subject doesn't exist? Absolutely not, skin scammers exist in csgo, yet csgo skins exist.
To take your exemples, if anyone say water will be boiling anytime soon, they are obviously fraud.
To boil we should have at the very least an increase of temperatures of more than 70°C.
Global warming is about few degrees every centuries at worst.
I never read Al Gore saying such things, but if he did, that answer your question. And even if it took advantage of the global warming in a more subtile way, it doesn't dismiss the global warming.
I could explain how global warming is not something you can believe in or not, but a fact, for various scientific reasons. I did it already in many other HLTV threads, I could explain you the difference between solar cycle, magnetosphere, natural green house effect and human activities increasing it. But as it is not the subject of my answer I won't here. For the purpose of this reply that will be long enough already, lets say that temperatures are rising for whatever reasons and the consequences will be disastrous for our civilizations :
- the hotter the upper oceans are. Most of our cities are costal, 3 meters up (won't happen before a long time) is enough to drawn the MAJORITY of our actual human habitation. Even few centimeter are enough to justify the expense of billions in protective dams. Billions of taxes to come for walls, Trump will be ecstatic.
- Infection and disease thriving under warmer temperatures, ever heard of Malaria? If you think Dengue is a problem when it comes in our countries wait for it, you won't be disappointed.
- as the south get warmer, it will get dryer. Southern people won't be able to get water or food anymore in their place and so will immigrate in northern country.
If you had a problem with few hundred of thousand immigrants, just wait for the hundred of millions to come because of that.
The point here: we have to do something to limit this global temperature rise. Because our fault or not is not even important, we have to do something against it if we want to keep our ways of life.
About the 'Green New Deal' now, as its name refer, it is about a stimulative policy.
To be synthetic, there is two way to handle macro economy for states : austerity (that become the rule since Thatcher Reagan) and investment (on what was made the New deal).
Both are legit economical policies, both have many Nobel prices in economy defending them, and some of these people even defend both alternatively.
Most of time, these massive investment policies are made by the left more than by the right for "meta reason" : state investment means strong state, state investment means regulated investment not exactly fitting the free market dream ideology, etc..
The point here is : on a purely economical point of view, it works well. To a point that a state hiring people to dig hole and other to fill these digs (to rephrase Keynes) would be positive for the people's state economy as it make the money move in a positive sum game.
So this 'Green New Deal' would improve the GDP of USA, and so the GDP of each US citizen. For the exact same logic Trump called for infrastructure investment during his campaign and building his wall would be a positive thing for US economy (keeping it up is another debate).
I'm not specialist of what contain this plan, just heard of it here and there, but as I said it would be a benefit for US economy.
And if it is effective on current temperatures rising, it is what we call a win win.
If it allow USA to take a meaningful lead in "green energy" it give USA an advantage to other countries in global economic competition. Win win win then.
Now about the plan itself. As I said, I'm not aware of it. You seems to quote some unpleasant policies. Economy is always about that: "destructive creation" said Schumpeter : we don't like change, every change is taken as a downside, but changes are needed in order to make things evolve.
So the question here is : are you agreeing to endure these changes? That is politic, and in a democracy it is up to the people to answer that. But being aware of the causes and consequences is needed to do so. That's why I'm giving my knowledge in this very post.
It is kind of surprising that "Green policies" want to stop space travel. As Space long term goal is not about colonization of other world. Humans can live in space, on mars, or whatever, but humanity CAN'T. It even worst than with global warming : humans, some here in there will survive any global warming happening in the next centuries, but humanity won't. If you wan't an image, imagine Mad Max world : with some thing like 5-10°C global increase, human still live, but our civilizations? Not really.
Terraforming planets if ever possible, would take millenniums just to be able for humans to breath. Temperatures, UV radiation and other problem is a whole more complex issue.
Meanwhile global warming issue is just tiny degrees to handle, imagine changing a whole planet for dozens of it, air composition, magnetic activity, etc..
Space exploration is our future, I'm convinced of that. But not to go on another planet after we wasted ours, but because it is an access to unlimited ressources without any ecological issue for its exploitation. Not just metals but also infinite water and fertilizer, etc..
It is also the next gold rush, maybe even the biggest humanity ever knew, as the first trillionaire will be part of this adventure.
TL;DR: to join your conclusion, I personally believe that space is our future, but I also know for fact that limiting global warming is our present. And we need a present to have a future.
There is nothing economically bad with any of these, just a bunch of opportunities for the first people or countries able to seize these two domains first.
Too long to read myself looking for errors, so apologies.