So your desired message was a double hypothetical straw man attack? You're suggesting that hypothetically if these technologies were viable, then hypotheticall

So your desired message was a double hypothetical straw man attack? You're suggesting that hypothetically if these technologies were viable, then hypothetically people would still oppose them, because you want to suggest they're acting in bad faith and secretly have an ulterior anti-fossil-fuel agenda separate from emissions. Surely you can see how people are going to counter one or both of those elements though, right? (The technology so far appears to be mostly a distraction from more prudent efforts and 99.999% of people would in fact love and support the technology if it worked).