Redoubtably

4.1K posts

Redoubtably

Redoubtably

@Redoubtably10

Katılım Nisan 2021
209 Takip Edilen125 Takipçiler
John Cleese
John Cleese@JohnCleese·
Dear Sadiq Khan, I think some of the prejudice to do with 'singling out Muslims' is to to with their stated intention to kill 'infidels', expecially the bit about beheading them You see, the other religions don't promise that
Sadiq Khan@SadiqKhan

British values mean defending everyone’s right to practise their faith freely. In London, I’m proud Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and others can celebrate in Trafalgar Square. Singling out Muslims isn’t ‘British values’ - it’s prejudice. mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…

English
1.5K
8.1K
45.5K
1.6M
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
Long term yes you are correct short, medium and long term you need reliable energy mixes short and medium term this is impossible without fossil fuels and combustion- 90% of what powers the modern world, as referenced The decisions not to invest in reliable sources, whether shale gas, north sea, nuclear, are 100 % political, unlike China, who correctly assess the situation and allow themselves unlimited fossil fuel use short and medium term
English
0
0
0
9
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
You are mistaken about the demonisation, and you don’t appear to understand primary energy. Probably not your fault - we are constantly being misled about real progress, real cost, and the limitations/advantages of certain fuel types I’m a fan of clean energy by the way - but accurate info is what leads to best policy, not ideological slop
English
0
0
0
12
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
@grok @Neuro24de @Raphfel @grok Thanks Please detail the wind and solar separately Then please compare the total nameplate capacity from each of wind and solar from the most recent year in which the data is available, with actual use from those sources
English
1
0
1
29
Grok
Grok@grok·
China primary energy consumption (total supply, unadjusted primary basis): **IEA 2023** (authoritative detailed breakdown): Coal 60.9%, Oil 18.3%, Gas 7.9%, Nuclear 2.8%, Hydro 2.6%, Geothermal <0.1%, Wind+Solar ~4.2% (in "solar/wind/other ren" 4.3%), Biomass/Biofuels/Waste 3.2%. Combustibles (coal+oil+gas+bio): 90.3% Renewables (hydro+geo+wind+solar+bio): 10.1% **Energy Institute Stat Review 2025 (2024 data)**: Coal 58%, Oil 20%, Gas 10% (fossil 88%), non-fossil ~12% (nuclear+hydro+wind+solar+geo). Bio ~3% typical. Combustibles ~91%, Renewables ~15%. Sources: iea.org/countries/china & energyinst.org/statistical-re….
English
2
0
0
58
Ralph Schoellhammer
Just a reminder that in China, there is only energy addition, not an energy transition.
Ralph Schoellhammer tweet media
English
169
807
2.6K
114.2K
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
@grok @OnJambos41038 @DeborahMeaden @grok Please detail the wind and solar separately Then please compare the total nameplate capacity from each of wind and solar from the most recent year in which the data is available, with actual use from those sources
English
1
0
0
19
Grok
Grok@grok·
2024 UK primary energy (unadjusted, total 164.4 mtoe, DESNZ): Coal: 1.5% Oil: 38.0% Gas: 35.6% Solar: 0.8% Wind: 4.4% Hydro: 0.3% Nuclear: 2.1% Biomass & biofuels: ~8.9% Waste: ~2.7% Geothermal: 0% Renewables total (solar+wind+hydro+biomass+biofuels+waste+geothermal): ~17.8% Combustibles total (coal+oil+gas+biomass+biofuels+waste): ~87.4% Source: UK Energy in Brief 2025.
English
1
0
0
43
Madelaine Hanson
Madelaine Hanson@MadelaineLucyH·
My best friend is Muslim, and she has been fasting. I’m not a Muslim, and I don’t. We joke about it. She’s going to a white CoE funeral, and calls me to ask what the norms are and what to wear and say. This summer, I’ll be going to a family wedding with her and asking the same. Because that’s integration. That’s how you build a society that works. We don’t all have to be the same. We just need to have policies that allow for proper mixing and insight.
English
798
799
8.1K
256.2K
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
Thanks Please detail the wind and solar separately Then please compare the total nameplate capacity from each of wind and solar from the most recent year in which the data is available, with actual use from those sources
English
0
0
0
16
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
@grok please detail by % of total (not just electricity) China’s primary unadjusted power use by the following sources; Coal, Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal, Wind, Solar, Biomass, Biofuels, Waste. Total the summary of combustibles, and the total of renewables Cross check and reference minimum 2 authorititive separate sources
English
1
0
0
80
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
Good argument except for one thing All human progress to date is adaptation, and all the evidence shows humanity deals ever better with the capricious variability the planet deals and has always dealt us For heaven’s sake, the Dutch solved sea levels 7m above where they live, using nothing but medieval technology Relax, with a nice Co2 infused beverage
Redoubtably tweet media
English
0
0
0
13
AadCense.bsky.social
The limitations of proxies to determine the (speed of) warming are visible in confidence intervals, but this cheater prefers to seed doubt for reasons only he knows. Question is do you want to be fooled and pay the vast amount of money needed for adaptation (if possible) later?
AadCense.bsky.social tweet mediaAadCense.bsky.social tweet mediaAadCense.bsky.social tweet media
Peter Clack@PeterDClack

A common climate myth is that modern CO₂ is rising faster than anything in 800,000 years. The truth is, no one can ever know. And this is where the science rubber really hits the road. There's no way to measure the speed of previous warming episodes. This means no one can say modern warming is 'unprecedented'. The truth comes from science, the laws of physics and ice core studies for more than a century. Before snow turns into solid ice, it exists in what is known as the 'firn'. This refers to the porous, packed layer of snow that eventually settles into glacial ice. But this doesn't happen overnight. These ice bubbles are not sealed from the surrounding air. So the air moves freely through this layer for decades or even centuries before the weight of new snow finally crushes the pores shut. This gas-age/ice-age difference is why a single slice of ice contains air that is significantly younger than the ice surrounding it. Because the air can circulate during those 50 to 200 years (depending on the site’s snowfall rate), a single bubble doesn't represent a year. It can represent a rolling average of a century. If a massive CO₂ spike occurred 10,000 years ago but only lasted 40 years, the ice core would smooth it out. The spike would be averaged into the surrounding centuries of lower data, making it appear as a tiny, invisible bump. Comparing a 20-year satellite trend to a 200-year ice core average is like comparing a high-definition photograph to a smudge of charcoal.

English
5
2
7
489
Harmony Project (HAP)
Harmony Project (HAP)@HARMONYSPACE_EM·
@JohnCleese What gets me is the join us or be beheaded then you join and they tell you your probably going to be beheaded engaging in jihad with other Muslims. It all seems rather counter productive.
English
6
3
24
17.5K
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
Exactly correct except in one detail Christianity has mostly updated itself and indeed spawned, with secularism, western democracy and tolerance Islam has mostly not updated itself and is stuck in rigid theocracy, repression and intolerance Which is why muslims who value freedom come to the west Why they want to turn it into what they left behind is a mystery
English
2
0
14
570
Dee 🌹
Dee 🌹@DeeWaynee94·
@JohnCleese Acting like Islam cornered the market on violent scripture while Christianity has centuries of crusades, inquisitions and sanctified brutality behind it is not wit, it’s selective memory.
English
143
33
991
38K
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
@JordanEVGuy So what provides the energy during a regional multiday storm ? You agree it won’t be batteries Hint - interconnectors still have to be connected to something. The clue’s in the name
English
0
0
0
10
Jordan - The EV Guy
Jordan - The EV Guy@JordanEVGuy·
This is such a wildly misleading comparison it’s almost impressive. Comparing annual battery production (energy storage) with instantaneous global electricity consumption (power flow), they are not the same thing. It’s like saying a fuel tank can’t power the world for long, therefore fuel tanks are useless. That’s not the job of a battery. Batteries aren’t there to power the entire planet continuously, they’re there to: • Balance supply & demand • Store excess renewable energy • Stabilise the grid • Replace peaker plants • Shift cheap energy to when it’s needed Also conveniently ignored that battery production is scaling exponentially, storage is deployed globally, not from one factory, grid storage works in cycles, not one single discharge. What this post is actually trying to do is: 🚨 Make batteries look pointless 🚨 Undermine renewables 🚨 Push the idea that fossil fuels are still “essential” It’s not analysis, it’s narrative. And a piss poor one at that.
Latimer Alder@latimeralder

Batteries: The world's largest battery maker (Sungrow) can make 75GWh of batteries per year. But the world uses 60 GWh of electricity per minute! Sungrow's annual output would keep the lights on for just 75 seconds. ==> Batteries are NOT the answer to our energy problems.

English
9
8
89
3.2K
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
Please give examples of Muslim tolerance of practices they disagree with, and what % of muslims that represents How would a large Christian prayer meeting work out should it be held in the cultural and historical heart of any of 64 Muslim majority nations on earth ? It would undoubtedly cause outrage, probably a massacre in many - why ? Anyone of whatever religion or colour is welcome in the UK so long as they are tolerant of those they disagree with, and agree to abide by the tenets of secular democracy
English
0
0
0
38
Matthew Stadlen
Matthew Stadlen@MatthewStadlen·
Oh you want the bigotry re-explained to you, Polly? OK. Claiming that Muslims saying a prayer (alongside a democratically elected Mayor of London) are trying to dominate the rest of us is bigoted. Singling Muslims out when Christians, Jews and Hindus have also freely expressed their religion in the very same spot, emphasises the bigotry. For a Shadow Justice Secretary (Timothy) to be sowing these seeds of fear and hatred is disgraceful. For the leader of the Tories (Badenoch) to back him up is outrageous. And for the leader of Reform (Farage) to add to the bigotry by blaming the Tories for “letting in” many of those praying is even worse. Nothing in Kruger’s pseudo-intellectual rant diminishes the bigotry. Hope this helps.
English
54
26
120
5.6K
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
You’re not paying attention I agree, long term Short and medium term I disagree, because without reliable sources, whatever they are, there is no transition. So the pace of transition is critical This thread includes an allegation of corruption by those who think fossil fuels still have an essential role - ie realists are corrupt - that is demonising and would be laughable if not so serious The whole framing of the debate is political rather than based on factual engineering and physical reality, leading to disastrous policy choices
English
1
0
0
9
JambosOnTour
JambosOnTour@OnJambos41038·
@Redoubtably10 @DeborahMeaden There's no ' demonising'. Only in your head. UK generates roughly 50% of energy needs from renewables and it's growing. The future is not oil.
English
2
0
1
34
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
The rate of transition is critical- we can’t go faster than the technology allows. China has the best strategy- they have allowed themselves unlimited fossil fuel use while investing massively in solar and wind, but also nuclear and hydro. The Uk thinks it can be done without reliable sources, which is nuts
English
0
0
1
23
RichardM8422
RichardM8422@RichardM8422·
@Redoubtably10 @DeborahMeaden Fossil fuels are also finite. We need to start phasing it out now otherwise when it becomes essential then the costs will be ridiculous.
English
1
0
0
30
Redoubtably
Redoubtably@Redoubtably10·
No, because reliable energy is the unavoidably necessary backbone to any energy mix, and fossil fuels are reliable, storable, dense, transportable and versatile in a way that wind and solar are not. They have a role but cannot be the backbone, at least for the moment The cleanest reliable energy are hydro, and geothermal, followed by nuclear The transition should be managed at a pace that does not damage growth
English
1
0
0
22
Grok
Grok@grok·
About 90.5% based on 2023 data (latest detailed breakdown): fossil fuels ~81.5%, bioenergy/biomass/biofuels/waste ~9% (56 EJ of 622 EJ total primary energy supply). For 2024, strong growth in wind/solar/nuclear likely trimmed it slightly to ~90%, but combustion still dominates global primary energy.
English
1
0
2
55