placeholder

Typical post in defense of Brexit. The UK chose not to be part of the Federation. Despite the fact they it still enjoys considerable privileges that other nations don't, Brexit defenders still insist on additional privileges.

But once I did post from the sources, you ignored them. So I assumed you thought they were tainted. So you accept them as valid, then?

Do you think these institutions would say the same about the links I provided? Wikipedia is a very useful source of information. It just shouldn't be used uncritically. Do you think the links I've provided are somehow tainted by having been posted in Wikipedia?

More emptiness.

As per usual, no analysis, no logic, no reason employed. Just an unbacked claim.

Well, your first sentence makes a fair point. Just like in the US where the public is unhappy about the economy even though it's performing very strongly. But polls aren't done to establish any facts except about what the people polled perceive and/or what they intend to do. And given that the polls are unanimous for more than 2 years. one would have to posit a conspiracy to maintain that the results have been skewed on purpose.

Most articles in Wikipedia are rich in footnotes and links. It's clear why you don't read it.

That's why it's best to look at their track record. And given that the polls seem to unanimously show Brexit is unpopular, your point seems untenable. In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union? https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

Right. Professional pollsters don't understand statistics or just make their selections up. You've got nothing

If you follow this link, you'll find that for its final 2 polls beford the Brexit referendum Opinium had the pro-Brexit vote slightly ahead, with 11% and 12% undecided. https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

I'm wondering why you didn't look at the article before raising the issue of sources. You would have found the links. At any rate, the links have been posted.

Maybe anyone can edit Wikipedia without citing a source. But in this case sources were not only cited but linked to. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I got some exciting news for you. Footnotes in Wikipedia can link. Here are the links: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50777965 https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/performance-of-the-polls-in-the-eu-referendum/

Yes, you could do such a poll. But you wouldn't be able to make a living at it if your results proved to be consistently wrong. As I pointed out, this polling company accurately predicted the Conservative victory in 2019 and came closest to predicting the outcome of the 2016 Brexit election. It's a business. There's a footnote to that Wikipedia quote. But I guess you didn't bother to read that bit either.

One thing about a flow battery car is that while it can be charged electrically instead the liquid depleted of charge can also be pumped out and freshly charged liquid pumped in. And it takes less time than current lithium ion batteries take to charge.

The crazy dream of a flow battery electric car really is not so crazy after all. Last year, the European tech firm nanoFlowcell set up a US office to pitch its new QUANTiNO twentyfive electric car featuring new flow battery technology, and now the company is hatching plans for a whole US flow battery ecosystem to produce the fluids that make flow batteries flow. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/31/new-flow-battery-electric-car-usa-ira/

Not polled by the Guardian. Here's the first paragraph of the article you most likely didn't read: "A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union." And if you're going to allege that Opinium are biased in their polling you should chew on this: "Opinium's most recent success in political polling came at the 2019 UK General Election where they were the most accurate agency,[8] calling the actual results. In the 2016 EU Referendum, Opinium were the only agency to predict the eventual outcome with the smallest error.[9"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinium_Research And your comment about "just 2000 polled" is just plain silly.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/britons-brexit-bad-uk-poll-eu-finances-nhs

In the latest report from the IDF it was noted that the killing of the first 2 hostages did not violate their rules of engagement. In other words, it's OK to kill 3 half naked men carrying a white flag. Maybe that does comport with international law?

A wholesale excuse if ever there was one.

More nonsense. First you attempt to corner me with by invoking Biden. The childish of that ploy was embodied by a baiting and irrelevant comment. Since that didn't pan out for you, now you come up with an accusation of an "agenda". What agenda would that be? Can you share with me the contents of my to do list? Your posts read as though poorly understood phrases and arguments, along with empty baiting comments ("leftist" this and "leftist" that) were tossed into some kind of mental blender to create a word gloop which you fling in the hope that something will stick.

Yes, it takes energy to create hydrogen. One place that energy can come from is a renewable source like wind or solar. There's an issue in renewable generation called curtailment. Essentially, it means that when a renewable source like wind or solar is producing more electricity than the system needs, its production has to be cut back. Instead of letting that power go to waste, it could be stored as hydrogen. Whether it makes more sense to use hydrogen or batteries for storage is another issue.

What you've been saying for ages is essentially hydrogen instead of batteries. Not hydrogen as complementary to batteries. Onsite hydrogen manufacture could have an important role to play in the economy but only in a limited way as a replacement for batteries. As for the forklifts you used, those were lead-acid batteries.

I have no problem with contending that the Biden administration is implicitly condoning mass murder or maybe just mass manslaughter. And I see you're up to your old baiting tricks.

Hardly the same. One side alleges conspiracy and theft. The other not so much. As for you not caring... you're not fooling anybody.