@2still_learning
Account based inNetherlands!
About this account
- Account based in
- Netherlands
- Connected via
- Web
X says this location may be affected by a proxy or VPN.
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Done some stuff, still learning more, bits drop off the end Same @ name on Gettr
Joined September 2020
- Tweets50.2K
- Following795
- Followers853
- Likes35.6K
Pinned Tweet
Circuit Breaker Benefits Overstated
Following the leak of the SPI-M model to the media, a number of people have focussed on the claim that is could save "up to" 107,000 lives
This is a flawed conclusion. The most obvious and major flaw is that the model stops at 31/12/2020....
still_learning retweeted
Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric CO₂
in plain English
1. Carbon has a fingerprint.
Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers.
2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air.
When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of CO₂ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it.
3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13.
Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number.
4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone.
Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel.
The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6.
5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption.
The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true:
- For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy.
- For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists.
- For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth.
- For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy.
The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist.
6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources).
The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero.
7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion.
The conclusion rests on three things only:
- counting atoms,
- the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and
- the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records.
The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature.
8. What is actually happening.
Burning fossil fuel does put CO₂ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a CO₂ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel CO₂ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources.
Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.
IPCC HUMAN CO₂ ATTRIBUTION PROVEN MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Fossil carbon contributes ≈ZERO to the observed rise in atmospheric CO₂.
The Keeling intercept has remained locked at δ¹³C_I ≈ −13‰ for five full centuries, while fossil emissions rose from essentially nothing to ~10 GtC yr⁻¹.
A large fossil fraction would have dragged the intercept toward −28‰. It didn't budge.
The only value consistent with a fixed intercept is
fossil fraction f ≈ 0.
IPCC’s own methods, own isotopic standards, and own data force the conclusion:
Human fossil emissions are not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO₂. PERIOD.
The claim is mathematically dead.
Full mathematical proof:
bit.ly/NoHumanCO2
still_learning retweeted
🚨BREAKING: Activist Danny Tommo has been arrested on suspicion of "criminal damage" after bursting a migrant dinghy which had no migrants on board
The government is taking citizens to court for damaging boats used by fighting age men to invade the country.
Let that sink in.
still_learning retweeted
Well well well... the Bank of England had given up on the hope of averting war in 1937, financial preparations rapidly accelerated about 3 months before Munich, and about this same time the Ministry of Information (essentially to give the Government emergency control over media reporting) was being set up, again, many months before Munich.
still_learning retweeted
Who has had an official warning about power cuts?
Trying to build up a national picture.
Blackouts definitely incoming.
still_learning retweeted
There’s a beautiful irony to this. The fairy tale that Dario and Sam told investors: we’ll commoditise every part of the economy that handles information, removing their ability to make profit - was what went sent the market running to open models.
They now have to IPO their canal companies just as steam locomotives are becoming viable.
This is the real reasons Dario Amodei and OpenAI want tighter AI regulation because open models are rapidly taking over the market beneath them.
Vercel’s AI Gateway data shows that open weight models now account for 78.4% of token volume, compared with only 21.6% for closed models while Open models represented roughly 40% of token volume in June, meaning their share has nearly doubled in only three months.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash alone generates 59.3% of the tokens moving through the gateway and by comparison, Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Sonnet 5 each account for only 1.7% of token volume.
However, the spending data tells a very different story.
Closed models still capture a disproportionate amount of money because they charge much more per token.
Claude Opus 4.8 accounts for 13.7% of spending despite representing only 1.7% of token volume while Anthropic’s five listed Claude models collectively capture 36.9% of total spending.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the opposite profile because it processes most of the tokens on the gateway but accounts for only 5.1% of spending, which shows how aggressively open models are competing on price.
This is the threat facing closed model companies.
Developers may still use expensive proprietary models for their hardest tasks but they are increasingly sending high volume workloads to cheaper open alternatives and as open models improve, developers could begin routing more premium workloads toward them as well.
Open weights also give companies more control over their infrastructure.
Developers can download these models, run them on different cloud providers, fine tune them for specific applications, and avoid depending entirely on one company’s API and this reduces the pricing power and customer lock in enjoyed by OpenAI and Anthropic.
If open models keep closing the performance gap, OpenAI and Anthropic could lose the one thing that matters most, pricing power.
If you enjoyed reading this, make sure to follow @MelvinInvests for more.
still_learning retweeted
🧵1/5 This is a hugely frustrating aspect of the energy debate. I hope SMR's are on their way. But they are no solution to the Net Zero insanity.
i. Clean Power 2030 (decarbonising the grid) is NOT Net Zero. The lunatics after your car & your gas boiler. 🔌 demand could ⬆️ x5.
still_learning retweeted
The enormous resource expended on protecting these criminal migrants from the outrage of decent citizens tells you a great deal about our state, especially when the authorities seem intend on destroying the English identity, denying its ethnic roots.
We live in a time when the state protects criminals and criminalises the actions of law-abiding citizens.
still_learning retweeted
Trump has threatened to impose an export ban on diesel fuel. Here's my analysis of the potential consequences: something similar should be in the briefing for governments everywhere. 🧵
still_learning retweeted
Yes, exactly this. But people still don't understand the true horror coming our way if the Net Zero insanity is not stopped.
It's bad enough while "renewables" are displacing existing 🔌 production. Wait 'til the totalitarian morons take away your ICE car & your gas boiler.
still_learning retweeted
Thanks to Ian Roome we have an official answer on how people can identify food containing folic acid in restaurants.
They have to ask.
The second part of his question - on how they can avoid it - was ignored.
Sign the petition:
still_learning retweeted
Does this CANCER MORTALITY chart look familiar?
Folleagues knew in July 2021.
Of course this is understated because the study did not adjust for pull-forward effect or the rise in MCoD cancer deaths - and the last dates are artificially depressed from lag.
They also derive the same inflection date: Week 14 2021
Source:
John A. Catanzaro, NMD, PhD, et al. “Potential Oncogenicity of Synthetic mRNA Vaccines: Convergent Mechanistic, Clinical, and Population Evidence for a Concurrent-Hit Model of Accelerated Malignancy”. Zenodo, 3 Sept. 2026, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22282….
still_learning retweeted
Jim Ratcliffe said: “I’m sure people will find it hard to believe that we are being forced to mothball some of the most efficient plants in Europe but with gas prices now 12 times the level in the US and eight times that of China, we just cannot compete."
“Not only is the ridiculously high gas price in the UK destroying our manufacturing base and the jobs of hard-working people on Humberside, it is also massively increasing the environmental burden with replacement products supplied from the USA at double the carbon emissions and from China at eight times the emission level.
“The UK government’s energy policy is leading to economic vandalism on an industrial scale, exporting jobs to China and the United States and driving up global CO2 emissions at a stroke.”
Labour's deindustrialisation drive is proceeding apace.
still_learning retweeted
Cancer Treatment Expenditures - EOM Aug 2026
As of end of month August 2026 cancer treatment continues its robust escalation in PPI-Neoplasm Treatment volume.
This is expressed in Constant Dollars - all price escalations and inflation are removed. $53 billion in added consumer burden from cancer.
We continue to substantiate a 3.5% CAGR and an elevation of 28%, which arrived commensurate with the rollout of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.
CDC SEER Age-Adjusted Incidence Rates through 2023 corroborate this (2nd y-axis orange)
TES was right... found this signal in July 2021.
still_learning retweeted
Norwegian researchers drove a Chinese EV into a mine to cut it off from the world. It still tried to call home.
The project is called Project Lion Cage. Tor Indstøy, a Telenor security executive, monitored his own NIO ES8 SUV for years. About 90% of the connections he logged went to Chinese servers, even though NIO tells European customers their data is processed in Europe.
The car carries cameras, microphones, location tracking and always-on modems. Most traffic is encrypted, so researchers could see where it went, not what it held. That is the gap. China's National Intelligence Law requires companies to assist state intelligence work. Nobody has proven spying. The question is who can be forced to hand over the feed.
A separate test by Oslo transit operator Ruter found the Chinese Yutong bus could be reached by its maker through software updates, including battery and power systems. Yutong says it cannot control steering or brakes.
Countries buying cheap Chinese EVs should expect to ask what else comes with the price.
Is a lower sticker price worth putting a Chinese-controlled sensor on every street?
Norway 🇳🇴 put Chinese 🇨🇳 EVs in a mine so the cars could not “see” the outside world. 🚘
They still tried to call home. 🛜
Researchers found data moving with the car switched off.
About 90% of the traffic from the car they tore down went to China.
Same country now selling cheap EVs into Canada. 🇨🇦
Cameras. Mics. Always-on modems. PRC intelligence law.
This is not a green-car debate. ♻️
It is a rolling sensor debate. 🛰️
Ottawa wants the cheap sticker price. Beijing wants the feed.
#cdnpoli #CCP
still_learning retweeted
By 1776 the average American soldier stood nearly three inches taller than the redcoat sent to put him down.
They were the same people. Same villages, same surnames, same blood, separated by three or four generations and one ocean.
The Englishman had grown up on bread and the game laws. His deer belonged to the king, his rabbits to the squire, and his common had been fenced.
The American had grown up in a country with no lord, no keeper and no forest law. William Penn wrote the right to hunt and fish into Pennsylvania's founding charter. Vermont put it in its constitution.
Colonial Americans ate somewhere between 150 and 200lb of meat a year each. Emigrants wrote the same line home for 200 years: we have meat three times a day.
Height is what a childhood of meat looks like from the outside.
England proves it from the other direction. In 1800 a 14 year old cadet at Sandhurst, raised on beef and mutton, stood about eight inches taller than a 14 year old from the London slums recruited for the navy.
So the English ruling class knew perfectly well what meat does to a child. They had the evidence at their own dinner table.
They simply kept it there. The ones who got away grew three inches and then beat them in a war.
still_learning retweeted
Jacob Rees-Mogg has been talking about duty and upset people, quite rightly. If war comes, he says, people must join up. Some may have to die. That is how countries last. Rome fell when citizens paid others to fight.
The line would be ordinary if it came from a man of the nation. It is damaging because it comes from a man who once seemed to stand with the nation against something else.
A few years ago Michael Rainsborough and I argued that Western government had ceased to be national in the ordinary sense and become imperial: a system of management over peoples, not a home belonging to a people. Empires do not need citizens. They need subjects, communities, and a priesthood of progress. The nation state asks for loyalty among equals.
The new arrangement asks for deference to a civilising mission aimed, more and more, at the historic population itself. Brexit was a sovereign native revolt against that. It was not a tantrum about trade. It was a people saying they would not be administered as a province of a postnational order.
In 2016–19 Rees-Mogg looked as if he understood the distinction. He treated the referendum as a valid instruction. That put him on the national side of the only argument that mattered. The slouch in the Commons in September 2019 was easy to misread as mere insult.
At the time it could be taken as something colder and, in its way, political: magisterial unconcern toward the people who thought the vote was an outrage to be managed away. He would not sit up for them.
Many of us forgave the manners because the target of the manners seemed right. Turley was correct that the pose was ugly. She was wrong about what the fight was.
The new interview wrecks the alibi. The same loucheness is still there. The object has changed. He is no longer declining to perform anxiety for the postnational court. He is reciting its war liturgy and calling it duty.
The men who are to kill and die are not being asked to defend a bordered people. They are being invited to service an imperium that still cannot hold a coast, still treats national self-assertion as a public-order problem, and still speaks the language of progress when it means rule.
That is why the sofa now looks different. In 2019 the sprawl could pass for aristocratic refusal. In 2026 it reads as arrogance, detachment, dishonesty and stupidity: the ease of a man who will not live the risk he names.
On Russia the sermon moralises what does not need moral theatre. States act from interest. Russia has a historically intelligible one in its near abroad. Kennan and others said that driving a victorious alliance onto the ruins of Russian power would produce a collision.
The collision came. One may dislike Moscow’s answer. Ascribing ‘brutality’ as if it were the point is a progressive habit: turn strategy into sin so that the only virtuous pose is imperial supervision of the sinner.
As wars are fought, this one has not been the cartoon of indiscriminate slaughter the commentary requires. Whether one grants that or not is secondary. The primary fact is simpler. Russia is behaving like a nation. Britain’s elite is not.
That is the disgrace in what Rees-Mogg said. He had the chance to remain what Brexit briefly suggested he was: a spokesman for a country that still existed as a country.
Instead he talks now like a provincial officer of the progressive imperium, surprised that the natives might object to dying for a project that has spent a generation dissolving them.
Duty, from that perspective, doesn’t come across honestly. It feels like the Union flag being draped deceitfully over the progressive imperial agenda.
The slouch in 2019 was a tell. Then it said: I will not be hustled by the managerial elite. Now it says: I am comfortable among them. A foolish man, which I now think he is, can be right only sometimes. The blithe pose now grates heavily.
I wouldn’t trust the lives of my son and daughter to this project and its exponents. Just back TF off.
still_learning retweeted
The “all invaders welcome”, tree-hugging, oat-milk-latte-drinking, Pride-flag-waving Liberal Democrats have called for an emergency register of civilian volunteers who could be called upon if Britain comes under attack in WW3.
Defending Britain’s borders is back in fashion......but only against the Russians.
They've spent years teaching a generation that Britain is bad, that they should be ashamed of our history, and that aggression, toughness and traditional masculinity are toxic, replacing them with woke ideology, gender confusion and fear of everything from warm weather to a seasonal cold.
None of that is much use when you’re asking the same generation to prepare for war.
lbc.co.uk/article/calls-for-…
still_learning retweeted
And there’s the trick: start the clock in 1500.
Look at the full tree-ring record. Western North America experienced century-scale megadroughts long before industrial CO₂ emissions.
Natural climate variability is capable of producing droughts far longer than anything modern society has experienced.
Don’t truncate the timeline and call it climate science. Build water systems resilient enough for the climate we know nature can produce...
Regardless of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Wielicki why did you post an old meme misrepresenting a 20 year old paper (Cook et al 2006) instead of their more recent research which refutes your opinions?
"Increasing prevalence of hot drought across western North America since the 16th century."
King, K.E., Cook, E.R., Anchukaitis, K.J., Cook, B.I., Smerdon, J.E., Seager, R., et al. (2024).
Combines a new tree-ring summer temperature reconstruction with existing drought atlases to show that 21st-century hot-and-dry events exceed the frequency and extent of those since at least the 1500s.
"Joint probabilistic estimates of temperature and precipitation from tree ring-based reconstructions of the last millennium."
Marvel, K., Cook, B., Weng, E., Singh, R. & Cook, E. (2026).
ascmo.copernicus.org/article…
"Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–2021."
Williams, A.P., Cook, B.I. & Smerdon, J.E. (2022).
nature.com/articles/s41558-0…
Tree Rings Reveal ENSO in the Last Millennium. Cook, E.R. & Cane, M.A. (2024).
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.…
Well, this is interesting
Having been an IC exporter this morning, then curtailing wind earlier this afternoon, we have ended up turning Drax down to 1GW and CCGT's to < 3GW while importing 4 GW
Forecasts wrong again, or unplanned outages ?
Wholesale -£10 this am to £122 now
Real world experience of solar & the effect on the grid from South Australia
SA yesterday saw 'operational demand' drop below 0 MW. Think of operational demand as the combined sum of MW dispatched by AEMO every 5min.
Rooftop solar is the key here - and it can't be turned off in any real volumes. Some small amounts here and there, sure. But not enough to matter.
As rooftop solar output increases AEMO needs less large-scale generation to meet demand. That should be intuitive enough for everybody.
Now take a close look at the gas generation chart attached here. A gas generator was deliberately dispatched during the day, even when the rooftop solar output was so high (and demand so low) that AEMO had to dispatch every other generator out of the way.
Except then it had to dispatch another gas generator online. Torrens B4 was asked to switch on and generate almost 50 MW throughout the day. Pelican Point was online continuously at a flat 50 MW.
Both these generators had bid very high prices for all their output, but were dispatched anyway even as the wholesale price was very low. This is the grid security mechanism coming into play. These generators would have been reimbursed separate to the wholesale market.
The reasons are varied:
- risk of interconnector trips
- inertia shortfall
- fault level
This is a 2025 report detailing the reasons, costs etc: aemo.com.au/-/media/files/el…
TORRB4 and PPCCGT have a combined 700 MW of synchronous capacity that can be relied on to generate indefinitely. Note the SA grid max demand was only 1,500 MW.
If the interconnector tripped, the rooftop solar would be immediately culled by sending high-rooftop solar regions black, while the low-solar regions would be supported by gas and battery (until the batteries went flat).
Another reason for forcing synchronous generation online is frequency control via inertia. Despite the hype batteries are not the solution.
Yet another is having the grunt to generate enough fault current to be detected by protection relays, a critical grid safety function. Inverters can't do it.
Barker Inlet came on later in the evening according to normal market signals - it was bidding very low to ensure dispatch during higher price periods.
