Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Earth News Science

Dutch Agency Admits Mistakes In UN Climate Report 447

Hugh Pickens writes "The AP reports that the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has taken the blame for one of the glaring errors that undermined the credibility of a seminal, 3,000-page UN report last year on climate change, and disclosed that it had discovered more small mistakes. However, the review by the agency also claims that none of the errors affected the fundamental conclusion by a UN panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people. The Dutch agency reported in 2005 that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when only 26 percent is. 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 original report also 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 analysis said future IPCC reports should have a more robust review process, and should look more closely at where information comes from."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Agency Admits Mistakes In UN Climate Report

Comments Filter:
  • by frank249 ( 100528 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @05:57PM (#32803534)

    Saying that Africa is going to have water shortages in 10 years and then say it might be 220 million years is more than a small error.

  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @06:06PM (#32803620) Journal

    >>>Saying that Africa is going to have water shortages in 10 years and then say it might be 220 million years is more than a small error.

    Always frakking everything up.



  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @06:19PM (#32803740) Homepage Journal
    So once again we see that science is iterative. Scientist are always reviewing other scientists work trying to show that they in some way invalid. Hypothesis get revised and revisted, leading to better formulations of how the world appears to work.

    But, if we are honest, most of this is not about the science buy about the policy decisions. We are still reeling from the bad science that meant we could no longer increase yields by spraying crops with DDT just because a few radical scientists created massive birds deaths, like liberals caused the gulf oil spill to stop oil drilling. Or overstating the effects of lead on children, or asbestos, to destroy those industries and destroy capitalism. We all know that scientist don't really do science, but spend all their time trying to destroy democracy and all that is good.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2010 @06:28PM (#32803808)

    55% to 26% is a small error? Sounds like double to me.

    Let me give you an analogy: previously, they said that the guy who is going to anally rape you will have a 20 inch cock. Now, it turns out it's mere 15 inches. That totally makes the difference, right?

  • by Cassius Corodes ( 1084513 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @10:55PM (#32805884)
    Why isn't this man in charge of everything!
  • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @11:53PM (#32806196)

    All my predictions are true. Honest!, Here is a paper I wrote that says they are true!

  • If they couldn't write an accurate report the size of IPCC report, they should have written a smaller one.

    Gee, by that standard, the deniers should shut the fuck up.

  • by osgeek ( 239988 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @11:28AM (#32811606) Homepage Journal

    My sense is that Slashdot has become infested with moderators (possibly) gaming the system with a vengeance when it comes to these comments threads.

    I noticed it at first when I posted several politely stated but skeptical posts on a global warming thread a couple of months ago that were nuke-moderated. Because of that, I looked in subsequent climate threads for a pattern and I think I see one. Even remotely skeptical posts questioning the basis of event parts of AGW will often be moderated downward. Seriously... look through some of these thread. Notice how all of the highly ranked pro-AGW posts are responses to other posts that you have to click to expand.

    You don't see that kind of moderation vitriol even in DRM/RIAA threads, so I doubt it's the general Slashdot populace. I think that it's someone or a small group of someones with a bunch of /. accounts that have lots of moderation points and they're bent on silencing any dissent to AGW.

    I tend to be skeptical about most things, but I'm trying to learn what I can about climate science when I have time. I wouldn't want to be wrong about something so important. A discussion forum that has some rogue censorship element can't be trusted to provide a variety of sides to the issue, though.

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.