IDK why hydrogen just hasn't captured any mind share. Seems like a great technology.

It’s great science but it’s hard technology.

It almost requires extremely high pressure or cryogenic storage and it diffuses through everything.

That’s over half a slander damages award right there!

The issue is that these spaces are often prime trolling grounds, and you end up having the same discussions over and over until the honest posters move on and only trolls are left.

I want to be treated fairly and based on how I act, and yet I don’t get that.

You are being treated based on how act. You act like a spoiled toddler that thinks he’s owed some consideration by strangers.

I know what they type. They are responsible for that at least, aren’t they?

No, I honestly do not. I do my level best to treat everyone as a person and when I mess up I apologize and try and do better. That works pretty well.

If you are treated like you are inherently bad, you may be not as good as you think you are.

Edit: nice edit man. Totally not what an angry toddler would do.

Poor oppressed men. The fact that their side piece can’t get an abortion anymore must really get them down.

There isn’t? Millions of liberal men can man just fine every day just out in public.

What are you missing?

If you cry fowl you probably need to see a doctor to get your tear ducts checked out.

I miss jungle. It was really really dope.

I agree with you. In fact we had important data about this going back to the early 1900s.

But convincing people of it back then was tough going. Even scientists. It only really started being obviously undeniable (which is a higher bar than merely very likely) in the early 1990s. And we didn’t always do a very good job selling it to be honest.

TBF there are a lot of unintuitive things going on with the science of climate change, such as the precise role of greenhouse gas absorption/emission spectra in trapping heat, that even with a strong general science background it’s not immediately obvious what the driving factors are.

Add to that the (deliberate) but plausible sounding misinformation and you have a deadly cocktail of not quite correct pseudoscience to drown in.

I understand being a climate skeptic, up until a certain point in time. There were still a lot of things that were unclear and the reporting was muddled and there was lots of conflicting information floating and even in supposedly well informed publications. But there really is no excuse after 2004 or so.