Thanks for your link. In the article linked, appears the following "Sources of hydrogen include biomass burning, fossil fuel combustion, biological nitrogen fixation, atmospheric photo-oxidation of methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, and possibly geological sources" These are the only sources they give. They do not mention hydrogen created from solar by electrolysis, which is what I've been talking about all along.
Why don't they mention that?
Do you have a sensible answer to that question Ian, why a supposed respectable scientific article, aimed at destroying the perception of hydrogen, deliberately omits the main method of producing it?
All the methods they identified are all things that will produce global warming, independently of what effects hydrogen might or might not have, because they are all forms of extracted energy.
We've been through this, you and I, but it obviously hasn't sunk in.
If it had, you would have seen yourself why it is flawed.
Is it even slightly possible you don't want it to sink in because you can't accept I am right?
Why keep trying to attack what can't be attacked:- The truth? What drives you to try to do this, for actually months now?
Are there not more useful ways to spend your life?