This is to be found in Chapter 12 of the WGII report, where it tells us:
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.In fact, as the newspaper tells us, these figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) states that only one fifth of the Netherlands is below sea level and that only 19 percent rather than 65 percent of the GDP generated is generated in that area.
Steve observes that even 20 percent is not something that can be ignored, but the percentage below sea level is the sort of thing that primary school geography classes should be able to get right.
There is more to it than that, though. As the evidence builds, it is possible to say that this is more than sloppy work or a few "mistakes". As with the temperatures claimed to prove global warming, every "error" points in one direction, exaggerating the impacts of climate change.
Thus, while glaciers may or may not be melting, if you accept that they are, then the 2035 figure is a gross exaggeration. A portion of the Amazon rain forest may be at risk from climate change – specifically reduced rainfall – but both the figure of 40 percent and the suggestion that the forests are susceptible to slight reductions in precipitation are gross exaggerations.
That seems to be the underlying modus operandi of the IPCC – serial, structured exaggeration in order to build its case. How many more examples do we need before they stop talking about "mistakes" and admit to deliberate fraud?
CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD