Check my profile next week for (hopefully) a comprehensive explanation of why that point is correct and is widely misunderstood. It has taken me awhile to comprehend it sufficiently, and I had to discard some of my convenient misconceptions, too.
I suspect you were reading about results from feedback 'models'. The subject of 'modeling' was addressed in the documentary and it is quite true to my experience.
We can achieve statistical models that yield the result we are looking for just by changing a few parameters. But the purpose of a statistical model is not to get a result but to try and expain a large portion of the variability.
We can overparametrize a model that will explain almost all the data but will be poorly predictive. We can also achieve models that are accurate but very inprecise.
The only way to be 100% certain of a model is to have access to infinite and all data on all variables. Then our parameter estimates approach their true natural state. But that never happens and that is why we use statistical inferences to generate ideas and questions for further study, never for political results.
I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here. One example that the general public might recall is one dealing with second hand smoke. I personally witnessed a panel whose continued funding was contingent on getting a desired political result, they changed p-values from 0.05 to 0.10 so that they could say they achieved statistical significance. Such misconduct in science is everywhere that politics sticks its nose. There are numerous examples in medical research where pharmaceutical corporations basically bribe their way to convincing their virtually placebo agent is 'effective', and they are masters at coming up with 'explanations'.
One saying that is a tautology in statistics (and mathematical statistics is precisely what are ised) is:
"All MODELS are false, some are useful".
That's what we are after, we are after practical knowledge, we will never achieve perfect understandings. But it is precisely our tolerance of imperfection that allows blowhard politicians to trample on our principles.
It may be a good idea to curb some emissions based on allergies and toxicity, but to turn science on its head as a means of convincing lawmakers to change the law and redirect funds is disengenuous. Gore along with Green Peace, Gorbachev's Green Cross and the UN Law of the Sea Treaty is a global takeover movement that is turning science on its head as a means to obtain power.
Stockholm Syndrome?