Not to be contrarian, but if you cared, you could easily rule out your suspicions.

It's not even worth it to say why or how, since not even doing rudimentary research means that you aren't interested in developing a well-informed opinion.

▲

phkahler 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>> Not to be contrarian, but if you cared, you could easily rule out your suspicions.

That's just false. You might try to rule it out yourself to see. My comments here and the responses demonstrate that it's a waste of time to argue against people in the purity cycle of global warming. My position is one of moderation not denial - and I'm downvoted, told I don't care, and I haven't done even the minimum of research. Pffft. HN is not what it used to be.

	▲	16bytes an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You are being down-voted not because of some imaginary "purity cycle", but because you discard without reasoning a vast amount of evidence to the contrary of your hypothesis. You've heard of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Holding a hypothesis of water-vapor from air travel being the primary driver of warming trends is extraordinary. Invoking the oft-repeated "do your own research" rhetorical crutch and referring to scientific consensus as "hype" doesn't help your case.
	▲	wat10000 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It took me about five seconds to find this: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-climate-chan... Do you have any reason to believe otherwise besides a couple of anecdotes about looking at the sky and short-term temperature variations?