I posted the transcript, and it doesn't seem to read like that, to me. It depends on a particular reading of an essentially, in context, cryptic reference. Sort of like you depend on my taking your reference to islands "sinking" as actually referring to the ocean rising, and my overlooking your small but significant change of "had to evacuate" to people "being evacuated". Nor did I get that impression, when I saw the film - hence my surprise, and rechecking. I can see your interpretation, and the judge's objection, but I don't read it like that, I didn't hear it like that on viewing the movie, and I flatly contradict that it is a clear factual error. It's factual nature depends on what he was referring to, and that is not clear. What is clear is that Gore's assertion - that the ocean rise brought on by melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica is a real concern - is valid. Yes? Here is the judge's ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html Note that in addition to finding Al Gore "charismatic" (a first, I believe), the judge objected to those nine specific things not on their inaccuracy, but on the misleading nature (in his view) of their presentation or statement in the film. For example, the judge included in the nine "errors" Gore's assertion that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels several meters, not because that is in fact erroneous, but because its presentation in the film seemed to imply (without actually stating) that such a complete melting and large rise could happen in the near future.