Socialized Health Care in the USA

[weakwarrior]

Well, according to the British court,

1. The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation<>
   
2. It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"<>
   
3. Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"<>
   
4. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established<>
   
5. The drying 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"<>
   
6. Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"<>
   
7. Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"<>
   
8. The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult<>
   
9. The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"<>
   [st]

First off I should point out that using one nonscientist (the judge) to decide whether another nonscientist (Al Gore) is or is not making scientifically sound claims is generally dicey (given that you question scientists' opinions I am surprised that this judge is your oracle). This is especially the case here since in many of the situations the question is how much the scientific community is united behind one or the other side. Of course this cuts both ways since maybe Al Gore is much more wrong than the judge claimed or maybe less.

Now assuming the judge is correct: the judge himself says that Al Gore's presentation is "broadly accurate" so I think your attack of him "Al Gore (and his junk science) is sensationalist now" is overstated. The article also says
"Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].""

About the various points:

Point 2 unlikely to shut down but yes to slow down so wrong but not in the wrong ballpark
Point 3 as best I can tell is that while the 2 graphs Gore shows do not prove Gore's point scientists have shown that there is a correlation. Seems more like a nit than a major error on Gore's part.