It is found that the SRES unnecessarily takes an overoptimistic stance and that future production expectations are leaning towards spectacular increases from present output levels. In summary, we can only encourage the IPCC to involve more resource experts and natural science in future emission scenarios. The current set, SRES, is biased toward exaggerated resource availability and unrealistic expectations on future production outputs from fossil fuels. . . . . . . The huge global estimates of hydrate methane are suspicious at best, and have nothing to do with the likelihood that hydrates will provide energy supply assurance for the future.. . . Just as its withdrawn preceding report from 1992 (Gray, 1998), the future energy production projections for fossil in SRES (2000) are exaggerated and so are the resulting emissions. . . .

Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios
Mikael Höök, Anders Sivertsson, and Kjell Aleklett, Natural Resources Research (in press).

This is a silly mistake, presumably caused by an editor trying to condense a section the Dutch contribution which was meant as background info.

This is a (rough) translation of the relevant part of an article from the Volkskrant, a Dutch newspaper:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article1345754.ece/Uithaal_Cramer_schokt_onderzoekers

——————————————–
Maarten Hajer, director of the Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, a scientific bureau which resorts under Cramer’s Ministry, is responsible for this error. Hajer said: ‘We are independent. This text was sent directly to the leading author of the IPCC, not via the Ministry.’

According to him, this (error) was not intentional. ‘This is a simple descriptive paragraph, not important scientific work.’ It should have read that 26% of the Netherlands lies beneath sea level and that another 29% is threatened by flooding from rivers. Together, 55%.

——————————————–

This happens all the time when various contributions are condensed into one report. Somewhat sloppy editorial work, granted, but imo not enough to start crying that the sky is falling.

Thank You!

This is a great description of Dutch Ingenuity and Innovation, and of Adaption to their changing environment. Brilliant!

Why is it, that with so, so many successful examples, from countries such as The Netherlands, Bangladesh and others, all around the world, we have to have the fear and the panic of the IPCC, Media et al??

With the attitude of the IPCC we could never land Man on Mars.

It might account for the IPCC error. If the regions within 1 meter of sea level are considered vulnerable then the numbers used in the IPCC would report make sense and the error not so serious. It is still an error and should be corrected.