6 ms·

Dutch Agency Admits Mistake in Climate Report

13 points by cwan 16y ago

Corrado 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    Were the results of your friends code going to be used to set global energy and environmental policy?
  - temphn 16y ago
    Were the coworkers who thought there might be bugs in his code called "deniers" and accused of being funded by outside interests? And did he stonewall their efforts to look at the source code? because then you might have a closer analogy.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  I notice that your sentences Its not so much... and Its that the errors existed... are both missing apostrophes in the very first word...but that has nothing to do with the substance of your post, does it? I draw a parallel with your tiny grammatical error because the mistake about sea level in the Netherlands was introduced by the editing process when an early draft of the report was being condensed down to a shorter version. This is categorically different from an error in the statistical methodology or logical reasoning.
  - Corrado 16y ago
    Yes, in a way it does affect the substance of my post. If a person (myself included) cannot form a complete sentence and do so in a grammatically correct manner then I tend to take that person less seriously. For example, the run-of-the-mill Internet posting looks like this: "Yo! dAwG - ?sUP" Would you take anything this person has to say seriously? I merely expect that when "experts" communicate something that impacts a large portion of the world population, that they make damn sure of their "facts". All of them! BTW: I never claimed to be a grammar expert. :)
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
The errors seem large and obvious. A simple review would have found them. Was it rushed?
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    So, rushed is what you're saying.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      No.
      - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        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 16y ago
        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.
        16y ago
tome 16y ago
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.
rick888 16y ago
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 16y ago
  Not 90 million years. 90 million people.
  - rick888 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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!"

13 points by cwan 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  Were the results of your friends code going to be used to set global energy and environmental policy?
- temphn 16y ago
  Were the coworkers who thought there might be bugs in his code called "deniers" and accused of being funded by outside interests? And did he stonewall their efforts to look at the source code? because then you might have a closer analogy.
anigbrowl 16y ago
I notice that your sentences Its not so much... and Its that the errors existed... are both missing apostrophes in the very first word...but that has nothing to do with the substance of your post, does it? I draw a parallel with your tiny grammatical error because the mistake about sea level in the Netherlands was introduced by the editing process when an early draft of the report was being condensed down to a shorter version. This is categorically different from an error in the statistical methodology or logical reasoning.
- Corrado 16y ago
  Yes, in a way it does affect the substance of my post. If a person (myself included) cannot form a complete sentence and do so in a grammatically correct manner then I tend to take that person less seriously. For example, the run-of-the-mill Internet posting looks like this: "Yo! dAwG - ?sUP" Would you take anything this person has to say seriously? I merely expect that when "experts" communicate something that impacts a large portion of the world population, that they make damn sure of their "facts". All of them! BTW: I never claimed to be a grammar expert. :)

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

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

thaumaturgy 16y ago
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 16y ago
  So, rushed is what you're saying.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    No.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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.
        16y ago

tome 16y ago

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.

rick888 16y ago

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 16y ago
Not 90 million years. 90 million people.
- rick888 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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!"