Now you’re just delusional. First of all, in cases where I quote part of a paragraph or even just a sentence fragment, it’s always for brevity and clarity regarding what I’m responding to, despite your incessant accusations of dishonest motives. I’m sure you’re aware that anyone can just click on the down-arrow and see the full original post. I’m sure you’re also aware of the strict board rules about misleading quotes. If you think I’m dishonest or “disingenuous” with my quoting style, report it to a mod instead of whinging about it and insulting me.
Right here in this thread is a good example of your delusions about this. I quoted the paragraph that I objected to in post #75 here. In a supremely ironic move, you then quoted that exact same paragraph yourself two posts later, in #77, in the mistaken belief that it somehow exonerates you. The paragraph is perfectly clear, needs no further context, and is total bullshit.
It’s certainly possible that a large-scale hydrogen economy may have some (likely minor) undesirable impacts on global warming, perhaps in entirely unexpected ways, but not for the reason you state. I provided (in post #79 here) a few possible ways that this might happen, though hydrogen fuel would still be overwhelmingly a net benefit. If you had made those statements, I would have no problem with them. But you didn’t. Instead you attacked me with unprovoked hostility for clarifying how water vapor works.
No, I don’t think you’re a climate change denier and did not mean to suggest that you were. But the reason that deniers go around talking about water vapor as a “potent greenhouse gas” just as you did is to promulgate a common misunderstanding about the dynamics of atmospheric water vapor and deflect attention away from the real problem, which is carbon emissions. You appear, on the face of your own words, to share that misunderstanding. Maybe you don’t. I can only read the words that you wrote.