Good on the government. Never affraid to fudge the books. Too many agencies spoil the broth. If its anything else like other Dutch administration, no wonder they cant get the same figures twice. Only in the Netherlands.

By langer | February 4, 2010 10:26 AM

The international climate data is quickly being exposed as a hoax put together with the idea of finding a few facts and then manipulating the numbers where needed.

By Bobke | February 4, 2010 11:32 AM

So it is 'worrying'? Either do you own research/report or forget it. Let nature takes its course and leave it up to our children to handle.

That is the favorite tactic of politicians anyway.

By bobsocks | February 4, 2010 12:01 PM

I am sure that the real numbers are higher than the government 's , but lower than the climate panel's. Is there any integrity in the Netherlands?

By larry | February 4, 2010 12:49 PM

This is just one of a long and forthcoming set of revelations that the IPCC is nothing more than a publisher of fiction, funded of course by the likes of you and me at the behest of government to produce the 'novels' that it wants in order to scare and therfore tax to 'control'.
Trouble is they've been 'made' as they say and it's going to be very interesting to see what happens next.

By Tony James | February 4, 2010 9:15 PM

Scare tactics is a good form of revenue.
The swine flu seemed to work quite well!

whether it be the expert (Ha!) climatologists, or the governments that alter the data remains to be seen.

One thing is for sure, the climate is definitely changing, and has been for millions of years!

Of course our sun has nothing to do with climate change: otherwise we would have already been informed, I think, perhaps?

So many uninhabited areas due to the heat & cold, not really a perfect planet, but better than most others.

And as for the Being that created all this in only 6 days, he should have spent at least 6 more months: and by this I mean no offense to the Non-Smoking-Anti-Weed-Christian Democrazy-Party...

So I won't have to buy that boat after all...

By stevie | February 4, 2010 11:41 PM

They have manipulated the climate data in New Zealand too to show a warming bias.

By paul | February 5, 2010 2:05 AM

The IPCC doesn't say that 55% of the Netherlands is below the sea level; it says that in the region where 60% of Dutch people live, 55% of this area is below the sea level:

"The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives."

AR4 WGII, Section 12.2.3: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2-3.html

[Editors note: to me this says 55% of the country is below sea level and 60% of the people live there - open to interpretation, perhaps ]

By Benjamin | February 5, 2010 4:51 AM

The IPCC is infallible. No IPCC report contains any errors or omissions. Every IPCC report contains the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Global Warming is real.

By Darryl Johnston | February 5, 2010 8:38 AM

Benjamin wrote:

"The IPCC doesn't say that 55% of the Netherlands is below the sea level; it says that in the region where 60% of Dutch people live, 55% of this area is below the sea level:

"The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives."

AR4 WGII, Section 12.2.3: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2-3.html

[Editors note: to me this says 55% of the country is below sea level and 60% of the people live there - open to interpretation, perhaps ]

By Benjamin | February 5, 2010 4:51 AM"

That there could be such dramatically differing intrepretations of a relatively simple (albeit grammatically incorrect) sentence is an instructive example of the perils of English as world language - especially in technical discussions.

It's impossible to assess the plausibility of Benjamin's interpretation without knowing exactly what is meant by apparently arbitrarily selected "...region where 60% of Dutch people live" supposedly referenced by the report.

What us clear is that, if this interpretation reflects the true intent of the report, then the figures were deliberately manipulated to create the most sensational effect, and then worded so as to mislead the reader as to their true meaning.

The editor's interpretation is absolutely correct, and is in no way "open to interpretation". However, the grammatically improper wording of the report promotes confusion, especially among readers not particularly expert in English grammar.

Instead of:

"55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced"

It should have read:

"...because 55% of its territory, where 60% of its population lives, and 65% of its GNP is produced, is below sea level ."

OTOH, if Benjamin's intrepretation were correct, it should have read:

"..because 55% of THE territory where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its GNP is produced is below sea level."

Even then, this would provide a remarkably convoluted non-statistic, since two of the three quantities provided (the GNP of the area below sea level, and the percentage of the Dutch population that lives there) are unknowns.

It also raises the question of why 60% of the Netherlands' land area was used as a reference? Why not just say that 34% of the Netherlands is below sea level?

By otropogo | February 5, 2010 6:59 PM

IPCC efforts clearly have value in their ability to create a negative pressure environment on the oblong plumheads of the willing, rathen than their current perversion to force themselves on the unwilling majority.

By Atta | February 7, 2010 4:13 PM

@ Benjamin
The actual quote is:
"The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced."

"Open to interpretation" What species of arrogance would cause anyone to defend such an at best negligent, and at worse, malicious, factual error?

By schaefer | February 7, 2010 4:33 PM