First they came clean about flawed research and botched fact-checking around the 2007 IPCC Report assertion that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Now they are admitting that the amount of the Netherlands that is under sea level is off- way off, in fact.

Rajendra Pachauri, lead on the 2007 IPCC report, has been coming under increasing questioning about the research and resulting report in 2007, which is important not only because it is key for regional policy-planning but because it has become a figure-head for how the world views climate change research in general. If the statistics and basic scientific basis for the report cannot be trusted, how can we hope for the predictions, policies and responses to what the report says to be accurate, useful, and, indeed, true?

The IPCC is coming under fire for incorrectly citing a statistic about how much of the Netherlands is under sea level. According to Reuters, the 2007 report included this sentence: "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level rise and river flooding because 55 percent of its territory is below sea level."

 The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA), said that in truth only 26% of the country is below sea level, while 29% is susceptible to river flooding. That’s a big difference. The NEAA was also the original source of the incorrect data. The IPCC is defending itself by saying that many other sources repeated the error, including the Dutch Ministry of Transport and a European Commission.

The United Nations continues to defend the core findings of the report, saying that errors in the 3,000 page report do not change the basic findings that humans and fossil fuel burning are causes of climate change.

"The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," said a February 12 IPCC note, according to Reuters.

All of this is fodder for climate change deniers and skeptics. While I have to agree that a few statistics, especially ones that are erroneously re-reported, do not change the core findings of the IPCC report, the case in general is not doing well in the media. With economic and financial pressures making action on climate change difficult or undesirable from a monetary standpoint, these are exactly the kind of errors that groups can use to attempt to discredit the severity of the problem or the causal relationship between human activity and climate change.

The IPCC note continued: "A preliminary analysis suggests that the sentence discussed should end with: 'because 55 percent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding'.”

And that’s fine. One (or two) bad statistic(s) should be taken as a strong endorsement of the rest of the report- not as a reason to doubt its truth overall. As they say, the exception proves the rule, it does not disprove the theory completely.

As climate change science is a relatively new field in general, it is our responsibility as a global society to realize that there will be mistakes made and there will be adjustments along the way. This is as important as getting the information right in the end.

Photo Credit: World Economic Forum (via Flickr under CCL)