The movie is basically an enumeration of:
(1) Evidence that global warming is occurring.
(2) Consequences of global warming.
Clever parsing aside, do you really want to argue that he wasn't suggesting that catastrophic ice melt wasn't in (2), but just a random fact thrown in?
It doesn't take any clever parsing to see that if person A says "X is possible" and person B says, "No, you're wrong! It's not 100% certain that X will happen!" then person B is misinterpreting person A, either mistakenly or deliberately.
Clever parsing aside, do you really want to argue that he wasn't suggesting that catastrophic ice melt wasn't in (2), but just a random fact thrown in?