In the latest of a series of reports backing the validity of work by leading climate scientists, the Dutch government said Monday that a review of a key report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had found no significant errors.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency took a look at the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, a 2007 study considered the basis for understanding climate change science, following criticism that the report had in several instances exaggerated climate impacts.
IPCC officials admitted one important mistake Â? an exaggeration of the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers Â? but noted that the error shouldn't be used to invalidate the rest of the 3,000-page report.
The Netherlands government agreed with that conclusion in its study of the "impacts, adaptation and vulnerability" section of the report, which looks at regional impacts of climate change.
Reviewers found that statements in the section are "well founded and none were found to contain any significant errors," though some minor errors cropped up. They issued a set of recommendations on how to strengthen upcoming reports, with a view to eradicating such mistakes.
Representatives of the thousands of leading international climate scientists who volunteer their time to produce the reports called the Dutch study a validation of their work, which won a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
"The review is explicit in its finding that the key conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report are accurate, correct and supported entirely by the leading science in the field," said Martin Parry, co-chair of the team that produced the "impacts, adaptation and vulnerability" section of the 2007 report.
Climate scientists, under broad attack by sceptics of climate change science, have in recent weeks enjoyed a welcome series of victories. Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University climate scientist embroiled in a high-profile stolen email scandal at the University of East Anglia, was exonerated of charges of research misconduct and ethical lapses last week after a review by his university.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
