Slashdot Mirror
India Ratifies The Paris Climate Change Agreement (npr.org)
"India just ratified the Paris climate deal -- bringing it extremely close to taking effect," reports the Washington Post, calling India the world's fourth-largest producer of greenhouse gas. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes NPR's update on the Paris agreement:
It will not become binding until it's ratified by 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The 55-country requirement has already been fulfilled -- India is No. 62 -- but...the current signatories account for about 52 percent of global greenhouse emissions, according to a statement released by the U.N. on Sunday.
India currently produces about 4.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions [and] has set a goal of producing 40 percent of its electricity with non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. India also promised to plant or preserve enough tree cover to act as a sink for at least 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and has called on the U.S. and other fully developed countries to share technologies that help decrease emissions.
India currently produces about 4.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions [and] has set a goal of producing 40 percent of its electricity with non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. India also promised to plant or preserve enough tree cover to act as a sink for at least 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and has called on the U.S. and other fully developed countries to share technologies that help decrease emissions.
Canada (1.95% of the percent of global greenhouse emissions) is supposed to ratify the agreement later this week. With the liberals having the majority of seats, this should easily pass. Not enough to bring it to 55%, though.
Expertise is a factor. Ever been misdiagnosed by four doctors in a row? I have. And I could have died. Now that's a life lesson in what and how to trust expertise. Yes one goes to the doctor. But one also knows their knowledge, whilst the product of many years of intelligent work, is also not infallible. And this is pretty common. So one asks, how did they arrive at the conclusion? When they were taking symptoms, they concluded one thing. When they finally saw the CT scan, they concluded something very different. So the question is, what did they do, how reliable was the method for arriving at the conclusion? So then, have you ever heard of the Institute of Forecasters? They study academically the kinds of things which have empirically led to successful scenarios/predictions, and the kinds of things which have, from experience, empirically, led to bad predictions. And they looked at the methods for drawing up the scenarios of climate change, and according to empirical evidence, all the methods being used are rubbish. Take this about water. Yes, it is a greenhouse gas, which is why most of the warming is actually supposed to come from feedbacks with water, not from CO2 alone. On its own CO2 causes a degree of warming, and the rest is modelled feedbacks. But the methods used for the models are not to be trusted, because from experience it is known that the way they approached it, those methods are unlikely to work. But have you heard of the Institute of Forecasters? Nope, because they are "experts" but not the "experts" who you are choosing to listen to. And that's life: there in inherent and unavoidable risk in expert predictions, whilst a payoff for experts making their predictions/scenarios sound very urgent and important. I'm sure everyone means well, mostly, but we easily forget that complex models with feedback systems are NOT basic science, like some clockwork machine, they are the product of simulations, and so far they have all been running much hotter than actual temperatures. Plus there's no reason to trust those simulations because they weren't even built using proven methods. So if you're expert in the subject, please go ahead and check the Institute of Forecasters, and please say something about what is the actual evidence which you find is provably correct about man made catastrophic climate change.
India has more cows than any country in the world.
http://beef2live.com/story-wor...
http://qz.com/643433/all-you-w...
India's cows produce more climate damage that all of its cars and trucks.
http://content.time.com/time/w...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?