Jump to content

Dutch agency admits mistake in UN climate report

Recommended Posts

How are we to trust a source that can't add?


THE HAGUE, Netherlands – A leading Dutch environmental agency, taking the blame for one of the glaring errors that undermined the credibility of a seminal U.N. report on climate change, said Monday it has discovered more small mistakes and urged the panel to be more careful.


But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed that none of the errors effected the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.


Mistakes discovered in the 3,000-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year fed into an atmosphere of skepticism over the reliability of climate scientists who have been warning for many years that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases could have catastrophic consequences, including rising sea levels, drought and the extinction of nearly one-third of the Earth's species.


The errors put scientists on the defensive in the months before a major summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December, which met with only limited success on agreeing how to limit carbon emissions and contain the worst effects of global warming.


The underlying IPCC conclusions remain valid, said Maarten Hajer, the Dutch agency's director. The IPCC report is not a house of cards that collapses with one error, but is more like a puzzle with many pieces that need to fit together. "So the errors do not affect the whole construction," he said at a news conference.


But he said the boiled-down version of the full IPCC report, a synthesis meant as a guideline for policymakers, included conclusions drawn from "expert judgments" that were not always clearly sourced or transparent.


With some conclusions, "we can't say it's plainly wrong. We don't know," and can't tell from the supporting text, Hajer said. The IPCC should "be careful making generalizations."


The IPCC, in a statement from its Geneva headquarters, welcomed the agency's findings, which it said confirmed the IPCC's conclusion that "continued climate change will pose serious challenges to human well-being and sustainable development."


It said it will "pay close attention" to the agency's recommendations to tighten up review procedures.


The Dutch agency accepted responsibility for one mistake by the IPCC when it reported in 2005 that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when only 26 percent is. The report should have said 55 percent is prone to flooding, including river flooding.


The mistake happened when a long report was compressed into a short one, and two figures were meshed into one. "Something was lost, and it wasn't spotted," said Hajer.


"The incorrect wording in the IPCC report does not affect the message of the conclusion," that the Netherlands is highly susceptible to sea level rise, the agency's report said. "The lesson to be learned for an assessment agency such as ours is that quality control is needed at the primary level."


The second previously reported error claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, which the Dutch agency partly traced to a report on the likely shrinking of glaciers by the year 2350.


The review, which lasted five months, also found several other errors in the IPCC report on regional impacts of climate change — one of four separate IPCC reports in 2007 — although it said they were inconsequential.


The original report said global warming will put 75 million to 250 million Africans at risk of severe water shortages in the next 10 years, but a recalculation showed that range should be 90 million to 220 million, the agency said.


Another error it found involved the effect of wind turbulence on anchovy fisheries on Africa's west coast.


The Dutch agency said it examined 32 conclusions in the summary for policy makers on the impact of climate change in eight regions.


"Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC," the report said. "There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change ... (that) pose substantial risks to most parts of the world."


It said future IPCC reports should have a more robust review process and should look more closely at where information comes from. It also recommended more investment in monitoring global warming in developing countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe, but it is because there are plenty of peers that will


join right in with that agency for the political expediency of it.


It's a leftist subculture with serious ulterior motives.


Global warming is global REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH.


They've even SAID it.


Most Americans are now listening, and getting fed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Cal, it's not a 'leftist subculture with serious ulterior motives.' It's just how science works. There are people that will pay scientists on both sides. There are 'scientists' that will publish bogus results. Peer review makes science work because EVERYONE can check these papers. Just because Einstein said something, it doesn't make it true, in fact, his works are being disproved more and more often.


Just take a look at the EPA's FAQ




To me, this doesn't sound like they're spouting off facts to show how much they know. It sounds like the opposite, which is how science works, you go off of what you don't know to conduct new experiments. They have the following statistic on their site, which I'm inclined to believe after looking at the experimental data (provided they weren't doctored) that claims the greenhouse gas levels had a higher rate of increase during 1900-2000 than they did from 1800 to 1900. If that's the case, then I'd argue that we probably are affecting the environment to raise those levels.




But you might ask, VT, you can't repeat their experiments, why do you believe them? Because I can read and analyze data in their report. Because any other scientist can do the same. Because if you endorse a scientific paper, you are putting your reputation on the line. The National Academy of Sciences put together a huge list of signatures that endorsed that report. Every time someone's claimed they falsified data, they've been proven wrong.





Now, you might bring up that wikipedia's an awful source. Sure, it might have been ten years ago. But today, that place is a treasure trove of information for academia. It's my go-to place when I need to look up something math/physics/bio related for my classes.


Yes, there are junk scientists on both sides (ie people that say Florida will be under water next year, like my roommate, or people that claim the report used bogus info but can't prove any of it). Global warming is being affected by our emissions. The extent of what we can repair and how much damage it will actually cause is completely up in the air. No one knows how much the sea levels will rise, how much ice will melt, nor if slowing our emissions will actually help our cause. We think that these may be very likely outcomes, but that is all that the scientific community is willing to say at the moment.


The point that I want to make is that you guys can cry 'foul play' all you like, but I'm willing to bet that you haven't read through the reports and compared their analysis to your own. Until you do so, your opinion on the topic is one of ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not buyin it, Vapor.


Your "moral equivalency knee jerk response" doesn't fly.


There never was any side disagreeing with the global warming fraud before


there were frauds.


Hence, therefore, and alas... @@


the principle of self defense comes into play.


The big global warming hoax is about global wealth distribution.


So, the big lie came in, when those bleeding heart liberal/marxist type of folks, plenty enough of them


to warrant being labeled a -subculture-, because they wanted that redistribution of wealth badly enough,


so much that in their extreme, way past the norm arrogance, the ends justify the means.


So, despite the scandals and the lies, etc. - "they" won't back down, because they believe in the ends.


They don't care about the means to achieve those ends.


And that, in a president, leads to despotism and fascism, and marxist control of our economy.


Obamao didn't "mis-speak" when he openly referred to wanting a CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE AS WELL FUNDED AND ARMED


as our MILITARY.


Because, he knows our military will not be loyal to his marxist dreams of power.


But a carefully orchestrated and chosen civilian security force would be.


Like, the the dropping of the obvious case of voter intimidation case against the new Black Panters?


Have you seen the video of one of those fools yelling about hating all whites, and telling other blacks they


have to kill them?


We are in a leftist, subcultural revolt against... US.


Against whites, and even blacks who don't enjoin their marxist, hate-spewing cause.


And that, is who Obamao is - and who Rev Wright is.


We are in for big, big trouble, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in fùck-all does anything you mentioned have to do with global warming? You can't be taken seriously because you seem to have a problem with limiting your arguments. You, like clockwork, go off on all sorts of tangents on random anti-Obama shit any time I bring up a valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is doubting that the earth went through a warming trend. It wasn't due to human influence, though. The earth has been warmer than it is now. It's been colder, too. It's cyclical, hence ice ages and warm periods. Vikings were once able to farm areas of Greenland that are permafrost now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, as well as others here, can think comprehensively.


You, not so much.


Not a slam, just different.


You think linearly, not comprehensively.


Liberals do it most all the time... @@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is doubting that the earth went through a warming trend. It wasn't due to human influence, though. The earth has been warmer than it is now. It's been colder, too. It's cyclical, hence ice ages and warm periods. Vikings were once able to farm areas of Greenland that are permafrost now.


Yes, but the argument is that we are accelerating the warming by releasing copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Which, I to some degree, would agree with. I don't know to what degree we're accelerating it, but I do believe that we are doing it. If you don't think that what we're doing is changing anything, I invite you to explain why you believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals tend, very strongly tend, to emotionaly "feel" an issue,


and they will use a single point as proof of the validity of their claim.


Now, say there are contradicting aspects of the issue.


consider, for example, that there might be 9 major issues with a theory.


So, let's say that logically, we have a matrix of 3 x 3.


A lib will pick up on a self-serving one of the nine, and that is all they


can consider. If there are eight considerations of the nine that contradict the


lib's emotionalist belief, they will ignore/dismiss the eight, in favor of the one that


lends credence to their very strong emotionally held belief.


So, a lot of folks can see all nine of the considerations, and their understanding of an issue


is tempered by both sides, but they can figure that the side with eight considerations makes that side


dominant/true. They are thinking comprehensively.


The lib/progressive isn't wired to naturally be able to do that. Libs are all too often completely wired emotionally. So, those eight


contradicting considerations are to the lib - null... they don't even exist.


If there were two considerations, the lib sees the first, and if pressed, can then consider the second.


But outside of that, they can only consider the line of favorable considerations of an issue.


I call that linear thinking.


To be able to consider all nine issues at one time, a Sherlock Holmes kind of appraiser can pretty much


figure that those two considerations of one side of an issue, do not overrule the other six considerations.


What you have then, is comprehensive thinking. Sherlock Holmes didn't see just one or two facts and then


become oblivious to all others. Contradicting or not, he was aware of all facts, and deduced what he believed




What we have then, is libs who, when faced with considerations pointing to the fallacy of their emotionally held but


thinly backed up with few favorable considerations ... side of an issue...


is the most common and obvious self defense mechanism - attack any other consideration that doesn't fit, attack


anyone who engages in talking about those "evil" considerations, etc.


You see it happening on the national scale in a huge way. Attack any conservative for showing videotape of the


bad guy SAYING exactly what was said he said.


But to the lib, linear thinking just negates the opposing viewpoints and those who espouse them,


to the point of ignoring or dismissing the actual video of the person SAYING what the lib denies was said.


So, libs emotionally don't have the ability to comprehensively appraise contradictory to their emotionally held agenda.


Well, I hope that makes some kind of sense. I woke up because I was sleeping on my left shoulder (hurts),


and my right knee is swelled up from being tweaked when I fell in the garden, and when we were camping, (hurts)...


so I have a knee dr appt Thurs, and surgery Fri morning on my shoulder, and I have only Tues, Wed and Thurs to


finish grinding the pto shaft that drives the hay baler, do the suckers all over again on the tomato plants,


change the oil in the vehicles, nail a few groundhogs and a few skunks (say, I have to call Canton Mike to see if he'd


like to help me do that for a couple of hours... )and cut down some trees for the farmer next door because he gave me the trees to cut down for my firewood, a bunch of other things I don't want my wonderful cute Wifie to have to try and do,


like getting all the 4x8 sheets of plywood into the hay loft, so we can finish the loft in time for doing hay in a week or two...


because I'll be out of commission, depending on the job, for ten days in some kind of immobilization cast, and weeks in a sling....


"yeah, boy". "whine" It's 4:30 in the morning, my shoulder has quit hurting, and my knee is better for being elevated,


and I have to get up early and get to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, if that's the case, I'd like you to explain to me which '8' things I'm ignoring, because it sounds to me like that's what you're doing. There is an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence for us impacting global warming vs. us not having an effect on it. By your definition, you are the one who is thinking linearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the slightest idea, nor did I ever pretend to have that answer. We're pumping a bunch of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We don't know the extent of its effects. It could be five years, it could be 5000 years before the earth's temperature becomes too high to sustain life as it does now. To put an exact date and outcome of our effects on the environment is just as arrogant and ignorant as claiming that we aren't affecting anything.


It's not a bad thing to be unsure. That is what science is about. You don't understand something, so you gather as much evidence as you possibly can, and try to draw a conclusion. Based on our knowledge of the use of fossil fuels since discovering we can burn them to do work, and comparing that to the levels of CO2 over the past 60 years, there is a clear correlation. Now, this doesn't imply causation, but there are a hell of a lot more studies that show correlation. I think in the face of all this evidence, it's best to err on the side of caution as much as reasonably possible when the alternative is losing arable land. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there aren't many reasonable ways to face the situation because if we lose production to go green, the Chinese won't, and we'll be left in the dust.


I just think that declaring global warming isn't happening at all, and citing last winter's snowstorm as evidence shows your ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you call "evidence" is only rationalization, and ideological jumps to the global warming conclusion.




Here's a list of comprehensive thinking scientists, who disagree with the global warming THEORY that we caused it:




We've discussed the deliberate tweaking of the warming data -


we've discussed the tree ring - the ONE tree that they finally found, that proved their theory,


(and dismissed/ignored all the other tree rings that did NOT)


We've discussed the ice age, and how it melted without any help from air consditioners or SUV's,


or modern appliances.


We've discussed the deliberate, and admitted politically expediency to be gained by those

who use global warming as a cause, like algore, who says to coast will flood, but he bought a


several million dollar house right on shore...


and we've discussed the admission that global warming is tied into global wealth redistribution.


Add all thses things up... and I don't see how anybody "knows" that mmgw is a fact to not be debated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a bad thing to be unsure. left in the dust.


I just think that declaring global warming isn't happening at all, and citing last winter's snowstorm as evidence shows your ignorance.



VT I think you are correct on both counts.


Where I part ways is within the alarmist speech that says it can only be resolved by high economy strangling taxes and or pumping slush money onto "green" pet projects.


Would I like to see us use some magic renewable source of energy? Sure. It just doesn't work very well so far.

And personally I don't want to fall on my sword as an offering to the green god while the rest of the manufacturing world rifles my pockets.


And there are a lot more reasons why there's more CO2 in the air that we can't and won't address.

And that's IF it's the biggest reason for the temperature.

Cal's right in that we've changed a lot historically without cars and electricity.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...