The irony in this statement is that you truncated my “simplistic and misleading statement” specifically in order to make your claim valid, and you are now perjoratively insinuating that I am a “climate denialist” (or at least propagating skeptic talking points) even though you are well aware that this isn’t true. This is a really disingenuous way of trying to ‘win the argument’ but unsurprising given how frequently you do this.
Stranger
I’ve learned a lot from Chronos’ and Stranger’s posts. But in threads about science and physics, I breathe a sigh of relief when our @Pasta enters the room. Not only does he (usually) sweep the floor, but he does it in the most humble way.
Add another.
Another agreed.
And yet another agreed.
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.
I’m reading the full post and the quoted section - what do you think is misrepresented or taken out of context in that post?
I can’t see it.
Let me be very clear. On many of the subjects you post on you are clearly much more highly informed than I am. But your presented certainty in your correctness as fact whether correct or very incorrect leaves those of us who could be learning lots from that substantial core of knowledge less able to do so. Which is a pity because I’d love to able to just learn from your posts with trust in their accuracy. You know a lot, honestly it is impressive, but maybe just a bit less than you think you do?
I enjoy @Stranger_On_A_Train posts. He may be a little verbose but he is undeniably intelligent and well versed in a number of subjects.
I have learned many things; and, after all, are we not here to fight ignorance?
IMO - both these guys are probably fine in their lanes (which seems to be the physics/engineering/rocket science ones? Not my area of interest.), and woefully over-estimating their knowledge in scientific fields outside those lanes. I notice this in earth science-related threads, where I do actually have field-specific knowledge, but I suspect it’s probably the same in, say, life sciences.
Overestimating? Sure, a bit at times. I think many of us have noticed that.
Woefully overestimating? Nah. It’s pretty rare either is totally out of line on a technical topic. Happens but rare.
But they both sure need to learn how to handle people offering even the slightest of corrections. Both of them have flown way off the handle at times vastly out of proportion to the comments they’ve received (see: this thread!)
Oh man, @Pasta has the best physics explanations!
Francis_Vaughan also seems to know what he is talking about.
And doesn’t seem too prickly…. 
Oh, sure, for everyday questions like “what happens when you drop something from a hypothetical space elevator at LEO altitude.” I mean, who doesn’t know that?
But for the really weird stuff, @Pasta is the one!
@Chronos reminds me of Sheldon in, “The Big Bang Theory”. He is intelligent, articulate, and a good contributor, but he can come across as arrogant, rude, and off-putting. I take the latter with a grain of salt and focus instead on the former.
I hadn’t come across the term previously. But it’s closely related in that it seems to be almost a mirror inverse of expert overreach (or ultracrepidarianism).
I’m not that’s quite the same thing as broad overconfidence about almost everything based on justifiable confidence in one’s area of expertise, although it’s similar. It might be better called the “Sabine Hofstadter effect”!
Ironically, Chrichton himself was a victim of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Despite being knowledgeable about several areas of science – he made some accurate predictions in the early 80s about the future of computers and computer networks – he was a confirmed climate change denier. The only way anyone could have this position is by focusing on disinformation sources that any intelligent person should be able to recognize as inaccurate propagandizing, and willfully ignore quality sources of real science. It’s surprising but he wasn’t the only one like this. He was notably praised by former Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, one of the most viciferous climate change denying lunatics in memory, who once brought a snowball into the Senate chamber and declared that only God can affect the climate.
If you really want to have a serious discussion about this I recommend you open it as a topic in another forum. I linked to the thread because of how dishonestly you misrepresented my response as “raging hostility”, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to have a nuanced discussion about a technical issue in a forum where you can respond with insinuation, insults, and provocative statements about how “delusional” I am. I have no interest in engaging further with you here.
Stranger
That’s fine, I have nothing further to add to what I’ve already said here and in the original thread.
You might, however, want to consider answering this question from @DSeid about how the paragraph I posted is “misrepresenting” you or missing context. I don’t appreciate being accused of dishonesty “to win a debate” when the reality seems to be that you just can’t deal with constructive criticism.
I suggest we put aside our intolerance of two quality posters and old fights and instead focus on our actual enemy:
DISCOBOT.
Shame on you.