

Dutch Agency Admits Mistake in Climate Report  - cwan
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/05/science/earth/AP-Climate.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=science

======
tome
Are we going to see a headline like this when a report contains an error that
makes AGW appear _more_ dangerous when that error is fixed?

If not, we're exposed to selection bias.

------
JoeAltmaier
The errors seem large and obvious. A simple review would have found them. Was
it rushed?

~~~
thaumaturgy
It was 3,000 pages. The error cited here was the difference between "below sea
level" and "prone to flooding". Even Knuth would be hard-pressed not to make
an error of that magnitude in a 3,000 page volume.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So, rushed is what you're saying.

~~~
thaumaturgy
No.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So, a review would NOT have found the error? It was disguised in some way? It
was not obvious?

Simply being contained in a large document is not an excuse - a review
includes multiple reviewers, each checking the accuracy of parts of the
document. Given enough time, the error would be found, and in fact WAS found
given a little more time - that's the point of the article after all.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Look guys, I know we're all in favor of the world admitting the obvious -
global changes are here and mounting.

But when this shoddy report is published to the world, rushed and badly
reviewed, it does a disservice to all of us. I hate to be the messenger, but
good intentions are NOT enough to change the world.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I will not argue with you over this, only point out that the majority here do
not seem to agree that the report is "shoddy", "rushed", or "badly reviewed",
and labeling it as such does not make it so.

If the most "glaring" error that the AGW "skeptics" could find after sifting
through a 3,000 page report with a fine-toothed comb is a difference between
"prone to flooding" and "below sea level" -- and if that error was primarily
the result of faulty _government_ data, rather than primarily the result of
faulty research methods -- then that's actually indicative of a really fucking
solid report.

The strategy among the "skeptics" here seems to be to find minor errors in
this report, and then try to use those minor errors to cast a shadow over the
rest of the report. What they don't want anybody to notice is that they aren't
actually arguing with any of the _conclusions_ of the report.

Well, fortunately, people are noticing this, and calling them out for using
this ridiculous tactic.

So, go ahead and keep attacking it on those grounds, but you're not likely to
convince many people here. The only thing that's being accomplished is to make
the "skeptic" view look more and more absurd.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The report is launched into a political environment. Any errors, such as
grossly misstating the economic impact of sea level etc, is guaranteed to be
seized upon by greedy shortsighted folks (politicians) and used for political
capital. That is also abundantly clear to everyone.

If you insinuate I am somehow trying to convince anyone that global warming is
wrong, your zeal is clouding your judgement - my simple remarks were directed
simply at the unfortunate fact that the report was released before a review
found the errors - which was what? a matter of weeks?

------
Corrado
Its not so much that the errors were small and likely didn't change the
outcome of the report. Its that the errors existed in the first place. If they
screw up the details, how much confidence can we have in the rest of the
report?

~~~
thaumaturgy
No kidding. I once knew a programmer that had an off-by-one error in a loop. I
thought he should be fired immediately. I mean, it's not so much that the
error existed in the first place, it's that if he screws up details like that,
how much confidence could we have in the rest of his code?

~~~
cantastoria
Were the results of your friends code going to be used to set global energy
and environmental policy?

------
rick888
One of the errors from the article:

"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."

So instead of it happening in 10 years, it's going to happen in 90 million
years???????

I'm amazed at the amount of people that feel that this is no big deal.

My biggest problem is that entire countries are basing laws on these findings,
which cost citizens billions of dollars in tax revenue. There is now too much
money going around for anyone to really come out with the truth.

Even Al Gore, the visionary behind global climate change (which was global
warming, but got changed for some reason........) has millions of dollars
invested in green energy companies. Nobody on the left seems to see this as a
conflict of interest. Al gore is creating legislation that will make him a
billionaire. When there is even a hint of a republican trying to do something
like this, people are up in arms.

~~~
sethg
Not 90 million _years_. 90 million _people_.

~~~
rick888
Even so, the numbers are still off. Everyone that down voted me never backed
it up with a reason. Also, my point about Al Gore profiting from his
legislation still stands.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Since you've gone and opened the door with, "Everyone that down voted me never
backed it up with a reason."

I didn't downvote you, but only because it was already at -2 and that seemed
reasonable to me. Frankly, I didn't see much in your comment that merited a
response. I read it, and thought of all of the other things I ought to be
doing, and couldn't justify taking the time to try to clear things up for
someone who can't be arsed to clear them up for themselves. I might as well be
spending my time arguing with someone proclaiming that the moon landing was a
hoax.

> _So instead of it happening in 10 years, it's going to happen in 90 million
> years???????_

Your original criticism betrayed a serious bias on your part. Even now, your
response to the correction is that "the numbers are still off" -- well, no.
The range has been _narrowed_. Technically speaking, the original range is
still correct. And, again, this doesn't in any way address the _point_ of the
report, which is that many millions of people -- especially the poor -- will
be affected by this. Yet, in typical style, rather than addressing this point,
people who have a problem with the conclusions of the report are quibbling
over the details in it as though that casts some kind of shadow of a doubt
over the conclusions of the report.

It does not.

You then compounded that mistake,

> _Even Al Gore..._

I actually smirked at this. It would have been totally hilarious, if it were
part of a parody. Unfortunately you seem to be completely serious. (Or
trolling successfully.)

Concern about global warming predates Mr. Gore by quite a bit. However, he's
chosen to serve as a spokesperson and representative-of-sorts for the various
efforts to mitigate the risks posed by anthropogenic global warming. He is a
figurehead, and as such, those with an axe to grind are tilting at him instead
of, say, y'know, the facts. His name was nowhere in the article, nowhere else
in the comments. You introduced it.

Article: "There was an error in a report."

Comments: "This proves the report is not trustworthy." "No, it doesn't."

You: "Al Gore Al Gore Alllll Gooooooore!"

As far as "profiting" from this? This really, really isn't hard to understand.
If I wanted to be a spokesperson for space exploration, then it would stand to
reason that I am personally interested in space exploration, and it would
further stand to reason that I would want to invest in space exploration.
Conflict of interest? No, not at all. A conflict of interest only occurs when
such a person is in a position to legislate or rule over other people who
might disagree. i.e., Gore probably shouldn't serve on a jury against BP; or,
if all of those companies were based in a particular state, and he was a
representative of that state, then he might legitimately be accused of pork
barrel spending if he pushed for a bill increasing funding for those
companies.

But no such thing is happening. Instead you're reaching into as many ugly
paint buckets as possible, and throwing wet brushes: "He's _profiting_ from
this!" "It's all _his fault_!" Etc.

> _My biggest problem is that entire countries are basing laws on these
> findings, which cost citizens billions of dollars in tax revenue._

Even if I were to agree that this is true -- and I don't -- you are completely
ignoring the cost of doing nothing. _If_ it were possible to say that
Hurricane Katrina occurred as a direct result of anthropogenic global warming
-- which I don't believe, either, by the way -- then wouldn't that imply that
the costs of global warming were at least equal to the price tag of Katrina,
plus all other costs? This cannot be ignored.

And then there's the benefits from continuing to advance "green" technologies.
I _want_ to see more efficient wind farms; I want to see better solar panel
technologies. These are things which _move our society forward_. We will not
advance, technologically, into the next century, by underfunding new
technologies and spending the money instead on older technologies.

> _There is now too much money going around for anyone to really come out with
> the truth._

No, the truth is available, but some people aren't listening.

> _...which was global warming, but got changed for some reason........_

This was the only part of your comment that I briefly considered responding
to, and only because I see this idiotic statement way too often.

It would be totally trivial to find the answer to this. Easy. Piece-of-cake.
But doing so would require you to venture outside your comfort zone, the
comfort zone where you believe you already have all the information you need
to make an "informed" decision.

The central issue _is_ warming. When oceans get warmer, when surface and air
temperatures get warmer, the climate _changes_. Thus, "global warming" ->
"global climate change".

The maddeningly stupid thing about this particular red herring is that the
term change was the result of uninformed people running around shrieking, "But
it's colder this Winter in my town than it was last year! That means global
warming is lies, all lies!"

