Why is climate science political?

[Trakar]

All silliness aside, if Jesus, Allah, and Gaia walk into a bar, which two of them are going to leave together?

It's your fantasy, I'm sure you'll come up with the answer you like best.

 

[code1211]

More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.

? what does this have to do with climate change, climate science, or anything even remotely related to environment?

The thread asks why Climate science is political. I suppose politics as well as climate are fair game.

 

[code1211]

And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?

That point from Gore specifically was denied by the judge as being unsupported.

I am not aware of any judge "denying" anything. In the UK rulings on the showing of Gore's documentary to UK school children, the judge did rule that certain sections did not seem to present information that was fully in accord with IPCC statements of the time, but he didn't deny or reject any of the film, and only found that some areas needed to be properly qualified and referenced, which was accomplished with the discussion guidelines developed by the UK education department.

Are similar disclaimers required for Math books? English? Real live science books?

If a judge is saying that showing a film requires that the major points of the film be pointed out as wrong, that should be a red flag alert.

This film is a piece of trash. The science is wrong on its face and the erroneous nature of the science is amplified by the intentional lies and unfounded implications of the narrator.

From small things like Polar Bears not being able to swim 60 miles to the imminent drowning of the United States, it's hyped propaganda and has no place in education or any place outside of Science fiction.

It's garbage.

 

[Trakar]

And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?

That point from Gore specifically was denied by the judge as being unsupported.

I am not aware of any judge "denying" anything. In the UK rulings on the showing of Gore's documentary to UK school children, the judge did rule that certain sections did not seem to present information that was fully in accord with IPCC statements of the time, but he didn't deny or reject any of the film, and only found that some areas needed to be properly qualified and referenced, which was accomplished with the discussion guidelines developed by the UK education department.

Are similar disclaimers required for Math books? English? Real live science books?

Are you claiming that a public release documentry should be held to the same standards as academic textbooks? Not that I neccessarily disagree, but I've never heard that argument put forward before.

If a judge is saying that showing a film requires that the major points of the film be pointed out as wrong, that should be a red flag alert.

I would agree that it should be considered a red flag. Can you identify an instance where any judge has done so in regards to "An Inconvenient Truth?" I presened a link to the actual judgment rulling in the UK case, and that judge certainly is not pointing out any major points in the film as wrong.

This film is a piece of trash. The science is wrong on its face and the erroneous nature of the science is amplified by the intentional lies and unfounded implications of the narrator.

From small things like Polar Bears not being able to swim 60 miles to the imminent drowning of the United States, it's hyped propaganda and has no place in education or any place outside of Science fiction.

It's garbage.

Your assessments and impressions are subjectively personal and are not in accord with either the mainstream scientific perspective nor the findings of the Judge in the UK case.

The judge's findings in regards to the UK case - Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

An Inconvenient Truth: The Scientific Argument - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/an_inconvenient_truth_2007.pdf

Science and Hollywood: a discussion of the scientific accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth - GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1 - SpringerLink

 

[saveliberty]

17. iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:


i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.

25. "Errors" This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

Hey that looks like a claim of error!

 

[Trakar]

17. iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

The "errors and omissions" referred to here are further clarified and qualified in #21 and #23 (which you seem to ignore) are primarily indicative of where the film fails to properly qualify terms of timeframe, or seems to imply exclusivity of impact rather than properly labelling AGW as but one of the primary factors involved. As the judge himself is carefl to point out in #20, #21, #22, #23.

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

You do realize that those wanting to show AIT are the "Defendant" here, don't you?

The main issue is in order to be in good accord with a proper science education presentation is that it needs to have some terms and issues properly qualified by those most familiar with the real science involved which brings us to #20 that you really didn't seem to like at all

20. Mr Chamberlain also rightly points out, at paragraph 7(a) of his skeleton that:

"The Film is intended to be used by qualified teachers, not as a substitute for, but as a supplement to, other teaching methods and materials. The original Guidance, prepared by a panel of experienced educationalists, identified those parts of the Film's scientific presentation where further context or qualification was required and provided it, with suitable references and links to other reputable sources of information. It encouraged teachers to use the Film as a vehicle for the development of analytic and critical skills. It did not attempt to hide the fact that some scientists do not agree with the mainstream view of climate change and even made reference to The Great Global Warming Swindle (together with a website containing a critique of it)."

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.

This simply states that if there are areas of controversy, regardless of whether or not there exists and legitimate substance to the controversy, that teachers should be put in a position to understand the nature of difference of opinion. This is simply saying that many teachers require guidance on understanding issues that are generally outside their academic and professional realm of focus and need some guidelines that the film and its associated initial materials and handouts did not deliver.

22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
Mr Downes does not agree with this, but to some extent this is because the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report. But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on those areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore. Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

23. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

(referring to "error" #1 - Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.)

25. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

The film states "near future" from a climate science perspective the next 2-300 years is consistent with the usage of the phrase "near future." Cimate is measured in minimal time units of ~30 years and much of climate science revolves around paleoclimate understandings and evidences where the geological time references predominant considerations. In this context a few hundred years is not just the "near future," it is a figurative blink of an eye. That said, the film should have offered a colloquial popular understanding qualification of the referenced time to avoid confusing the contextually naive.

Current estimates by the IPCC place expected sea level rise by 2100 in the 1-2 Meter range. 7 meters might well not occur for another century or so after that.

Hey that looks like a claim of error!

no, it is the claim of "error"

go back and see how the judge defines "error" in #23.
(( "...and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407.
EA 1996, ss 406 and 407.

Section 406 prohibited “the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”.

Section 407 required the local education authority, governing body and head teacher to “take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils...they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views”.

The defendant did not contest the argument that the film presented political views. The dispute concerned the definition of “partisan” in s406 and the meaning of the duty in s407

The judge determned that what was forbidden by the statute was, as the side heading made clear, “political indoctrination”. The claimant stated that in order to comply with s407, a school had to give what he called “equal air time” to opposing views. His lordship disagreed. The word “balanced” in s 407 meant nothing more than fair and dispassionate.))

 

[saveliberty]

Hmm...seems like I used your own source to disprove your assertion. I quoted sections, while you interpreted from your own views. Pretty funny. How does it feel to have failed from your own source?

 

[skookerasbil]

More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.

? what does this have to do with climate change, climate science, or anything even remotely related to environment?

What a fucking dummy.

Given the title of the thread, it has everythingto do with climate change.


Far too complicated to get into here.............you really should be on a beginners forum like People.com s0n!!!

 

[bobgnote]

17. iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.

25. "Errors" This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

Hey that looks like a claim of error!

Let's take a look at the nice graph, which plots CO2, in ppm, and temperature, in degrees centigrade. Notice how the swings in temperature tended to be 10 C, until along came 20,000 years ago, when CO2 again rose, to force temperatures up. The current upswing is tighter, than the others, but like the others, CO2 wanted to adjust, downward, toward forcing a cool-down.

But humans were busier, at industry and defoliation, since the end of the 18th Century. So CO2 shot off the scale, all the way past the usual 280 ppm equilibrium maximum, past the arbitrary safe maximum of 350 ppm, to 400 ppm, today. Temperatures will follow, with acidification and faster warming, from released methane. No way can we beat runaway global warming, without re-greening the entire planet, deserts, oceans, and all. Or we will eat shit and die.

 

[skookerasbil]

17. iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.

25. "Errors" This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

Hey that looks like a claim of error!

Let's take a look at the nice graph, which plots CO2, in ppm, and temperature, in degrees centigrade. Notice how the swings in temperature tended to be 10 C, until along came 20,000 years ago, when CO2 again rose, to force temperatures up. The current upswing is tighter, than the others, but like the others, CO2 wanted to adjust, downward, toward forcing a cool-down.

But humans were busier, at industry and defoliation, since the end of the 18th Century. So CO2 shot off the scale, all the way past the usual 280 ppm equilibrium maximum, past the arbitrary safe maximum of 350 ppm, to 400 ppm, today. Temperatures will follow, with acidification and faster warming, from released methane. No way can we beat runaway global warming, without re-greening the entire planet, deserts, oceans, and all. Or we will eat shit and die.

Holy Mother of God..................


Thank goodness these people are the fringe in America..........LOL.......and they revel in it!!!



Social oddbALLs are gay

 

[westwall]

And after the weather disasters in 2010, 2011, the 'apocalyptic' vision looks like an accurate prediction.

Yeah, those things NEVER happened ever before, nope not ever....Below are links to 3 storms from the 1890's and I tossed one in from 1933. This refutes the bullshit meme that the storms of today are any different than those of the past. Punch in ANY year you wish and you will see that the same thing happens every year. In other words olfraud when you predict that it's going to get dark at night you can bet a good amount of money that you'll be right...but is that really a prediction?

Another epic fail on the part of the religious zealots.

Baltic Sea storm flood 1872

The Chesapeake/Potomac Hurricane of August 23, 1933s

The Great Louisiana Hurricane of 1812 - New Orleans History & Culture | Examiner.com

1899 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shit. You should look at some of the 'fresh water hurricanes' that have happened on the great lakes. Many between the years of 1871 and 1940. Boy I'm rusty. I can't recall many off of the top of my head, but the Lake Huron blow in 1913 (IIRC) killed more sailors, sank more steel ships and damaged more shipping than any other single blow in history. The Armistice Day Storm in 1940 was a whopper on Lake Michigan too. Killed people a hundred miles inland from it's severity. Lake Erie and Lake Superior both have had incredibly big storms too. I also remember the Mataafa Storm of 1905. THat's a freaky one.

Big storms come and go.

Indeed they do. The willful ignorance of these self described "protectors of science" is appalling. They wipe their asses with the scientific method at every opportunity.

 

[westwall]

More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.

? what does this have to do with climate change, climate science, or anything even remotely related to environment?

About as much as the AGW fraud does.

 

[westwall]

And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?

That point from Gore specifically was denied by the judge as being unsupported.

I am not aware of any judge "denying" anything. In the UK rulings on the showing of Gore's documentary to UK school children, the judge did rule that certain sections did not seem to present information that was fully in accord with IPCC statements of the time, but he didn't deny or reject any of the film, and only found that some areas needed to be properly qualified and referenced, which was accomplished with the discussion guidelines developed by the UK education department.

WRONG! Here is what he said. Treading very close to an outright lie here trakar, I expected better of you....


The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:




1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

This is a particularly egregious LIE on the part of Gore and co. as a recent study of over 50 polar bear swims fixed the AVERAGE distance at 97 miles.

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")


Page 2: An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News

 

[Trakar]

Hmm...seems like I used your own source to disprove your assertion. I quoted sections, while you interpreted from your own views. Pretty funny. How does it feel to have failed from your own source?

I simply repeated what the judge himself said and broke some of the issues you seem to be confused about (given your peculiar and nonsensical bolding) and broke it down into simplified explanations (and largely from the first 17 points) as you seemed to be having trouble understanding what was clear to anyone who wasn't trying to alter and confuse his terms.

How many times did the Judge state that AIT essenially and basically got the science right?
At least three times in fairly clear language


"...although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion..."
"...It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact..."
"...These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists..."


In regards to "errors" the judge states: "...It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407."

The "errors" he presents indicates the places where he felt the political nature of the film might be encroaching on the legal constraints stipulated in s406 and s407, and therefore required addressment by the promoters to be in full accord with those legal stipulations.

This case wasn't a court investigation of the science in AIT it was a court investigation of the perceived potential of politics in a scientifically strong documentary.

 

[Old Rocks]

But Walleyes will continue to lie concerning the contents of the documentary. For those that have not seen the film, here is where you can see it and judge for yourself as to it's accuracy, and what it really states;

an inconvenient truth

 

[Saigon]

I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum.

Skooks -

You can not read or write. You are illiterate. You educate no one.

Your only purpose on this forum is to prove that on a daily basis.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum.

Skooks -

You can not read or write. You are illiterate. You educate no one.

Your only purpose on this forum is to prove that on a daily basis.

You educate no one?

Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?

So you gonna answer the question or keep running pussy? How is it man can control climate when they produce less than 0.06% of 0.04% of the atmospheric CO2 which is only 0.0024% of total composition?

 

[RollingThunder]

I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum.

Skooks -

You can not read or write. You are illiterate. You educate no one.

Your only purpose on this forum is to prove that on a daily basis.

You educate no one?

Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?

So you gonna answer the question or keep running pussy? How is it man can control climate when they produce less than 0.06% of 0.04% of the atmospheric CO2 which is only 0.0024% of total composition?

Yes, yes, BigFizzle, we all already know that you're completely ignorant of the scientific basis of climate science and totally unwilling to learn anything no matter how many times it is explained. You are a troll and a particularly stupid one at that. Go f... yourself, retard.

 

[bobgnote]

Holy Mother of God..................

Thank goodness these people are the fringe in America..........LOL.......and they revel in it!!!

Social oddbALLs are gay

Did you think the runaway warming, triggered by methane release means it's time to go really fast and shoot some more meth?

Noooo . . . do you ever sleep?

 

[code1211]

I am not aware of any judge "denying" anything. In the UK rulings on the showing of Gore's documentary to UK school children, the judge did rule that certain sections did not seem to present information that was fully in accord with IPCC statements of the time, but he didn't deny or reject any of the film, and only found that some areas needed to be properly qualified and referenced, which was accomplished with the discussion guidelines developed by the UK education department.

Are similar disclaimers required for Math books? English? Real live science books?

Are you claiming that a public release documentry should be held to the same standards as academic textbooks? Not that I neccessarily disagree, but I've never heard that argument put forward before.

If a judge is saying that showing a film requires that the major points of the film be pointed out as wrong, that should be a red flag alert.

I would agree that it should be considered a red flag. Can you identify an instance where any judge has done so in regards to "An Inconvenient Truth?" I presened a link to the actual judgment rulling in the UK case, and that judge certainly is not pointing out any major points in the film as wrong.

This film is a piece of trash. The science is wrong on its face and the erroneous nature of the science is amplified by the intentional lies and unfounded implications of the narrator.

From small things like Polar Bears not being able to swim 60 miles to the imminent drowning of the United States, it's hyped propaganda and has no place in education or any place outside of Science fiction.

It's garbage.

Your assessments and impressions are subjectively personal and are not in accord with either the mainstream scientific perspective nor the findings of the Judge in the UK case.

The judge's findings in regards to the UK case - Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

An Inconvenient Truth: The Scientific Argument - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/an_inconvenient_truth_2007.pdf

Science and Hollywood: a discussion of the scientific accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth - GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1 - SpringerLink

You apparently did not read the 9 points that the judge said were wrong.

Here they are again. Before that, though, you characterize this propaganda piece as something that is not like a text book. It is, however, presented in classrooms as a vehicle to instruct. There is no appreciable difference between this and a text book.

Your apparent inability to see a difference says more about the quality of text books than about this movie.

That is a sad state of affairs.

ninepoints / FrontPage

<snip>
Here are Judge Burton's nine critiques of Al Gore, with links to pages in this wiki that discuss each point individually.

Guardian article by David Adam, lists eight of Burton's nine points (thanks to Tom Adams for counting!):

The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

The missing point is this one:

Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
<snip>