Germans and An Inconvenient Truth

I tend to come across a lot of Germans who want to hype or talk about Al Gore's movie....An Inconvenient Truth.  My general tendency of being skeptical?  Well....I try to suggest to the Germans that they need to be through in asking questions, and they immediately want to correct me that facts are facts.  Then I tend to bring up this British court episode from 11 years ago. 

Back in the fall of 2007, a British judge had to reach a conclusion on Al Gore's movie....An Inconvenient Truth and the showing of this in British school science rooms.  The plan by the British school system (over 3,000 schools) was to present this as absolute fact.  The Guardian (British newspaper) sat down and wrote the judgement handed down by the judge.  He settled upon nine significant problems:

1.  The claim of a sea-level rise going up to around 20 feet, triggered by the melt-off of Greenland or Antarctica?  Well....the judge said no, this could only happen in what was considered a 'millennia'.

2.   The movie said that various inhabited Pacific isles (mostly atolls) would be swallowed up by the ocean, requiring massive placement of natives.  Well....nothing has occurred to suggest any evacuation is taking place.

3.  The movie talked about the 'Ocean Conveyor' shutting down or shifting.  The judge said that no evidence exists to say it'd shutdown.  The more likely scenario that he cites is that the speed would change.  On this, Al would have been better off to suggest a speed change, and just leave it at that.

4.  There are two graphs used in the movie.....speaking to a rise in C02, and the rise of temperature over 650k years.  Both show they 'fit'.  The judge says no....the data and presentation aren't a precise 'fit'. 

5.  On the topic of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro (meaning less snowfall existing)...all could be attached to global warming.  Well....the judge says no....there's real data to back up the statement.

6.  On Lake Chad and the lessening of the lake due to less rainfall....again, the judge said the evidence presented.....is not sufficient to reach some conclusion.

7.  The talk in the movie over Hurricane Katrina?  It was not enough evidence to reach any conclusion.  Oddly, at that point, it couldn't be brought up, but from 2009 to 2017.....there were no hurricanes in the region....which scientifically can't help to explain the intense nature of Katrina being anything other than a 'freak' of nature.

8.  The dead polar bear talk in the movie?  It was based off ONE single study that simply noted four polar bears having drowned.  As the judge said.....a storm could be connected.  But this was a huge stretch to reach a vast conclusion....with just one single paper as evidence.

9.  Finally, the judge came to the coral reef reference.  The judge said that there could be other factors at work besides global warming.

So the judge did this odd thing.....he said the schools could show the video....but purely as a political film, not as a science film.