That headline is so logically simple (and unsound), I want to chop submitter's penis off.

And hey, I'd like to point out that because (some) EMISSIONS are down, that doesn't necessarily mean POLLUTION LEVELS are going down.
It does help with localized pollution levels (as seen in LA with ozone levels)... high pollution still gets distributed around the world.

You do a great job of putting words in my mouth...

What I said was correct. And he's using some poor logic.

I see, you can't really come up with anything.
Nice trolling. I'll stop biting. :)

ignoring stats
Those stats are nice. But, not one of them had anything to do with current pollution levels around the world.
Again, emission in a particular timeframe != pollution.

And I agree that some of the global warning folk go too far. But that doesn't mean these statistics tell the true story.

Here's a simplified comparison: let's say I am going at a certain speed for awhile. I can't go past a certain speed without particular problems.
Then I accelerate from the original speed, and keep accelerating, and keep it up... then, I start slowing that acceleration. That's GOOD, right?
Yeah, except the speed is STILL increasing.

It's funny, because as poor a comparison as that is, I'd say it's more sound than what this man is trying to say.

Do we have a difference in the definition of the word "emissions"? It doesn't mean "these are the gasses that are in the air", it means "these are the gasses that are coming out of our products". We live in what is essentially a bubble. It isn't as if these things just 'go away' magically.
And I agree that things in the US are better than they were a few decades ago. There's no doubt. NONE. As stated, our cars are cleaner, our gasoline is cleaner... things are better! But, that doesn't mean that, *poof*, our air is super clean.

As for CO2... well, first, the Gore uproar is about global warming, and CO2 helps make the earth warmer. Besides, the definition of the word 'pollution' is not the point (I don't recall focusing on CO2 and saying "IT'S BAD AND A POLLUTION" as some enviro folk will do... and yes, you can argue that it is, depending on who you ask a definition for, considering the amount of CO2 that is being released into the air isn't 'normal', and it is changing the composition of standard air... but again, what the fark is the point of you telling me that?).

As for some things being "down"... you realize that many of these gasses that go into the air... yeah, well they don't just stay in one place forever. There is this thing... I don't remember, I think it's an "atmosphere"... and yeah, I'd like to let you know that LA doesn't have it's own "atmosphere". So because ozone levels in LA (one city... ONE goddamned city) are down, and visible smog in LA is down, it's impossible to believe that ozone levels aren't?

I'm not an environut. I'm not thinking that, tomorrow, the earth is going to kill us all because "we were bad to it". But I'm willing to call out faulty logic and arguments THAT ARE NOT to the point.
Even if, RIGHT NOW, the entire world stopped polluting the air... well, I have BAD news for you. That doesn't mean global warming will just stop.

namatad
Who the hell are you?
I have a penis, and you probably don't know what my political leanings are. So saying "I HATE to agree with" makes me think you assume I'm some stark-mad lunatic environmentalist.
I'm not. I'm saying, the statistics presented in this article don't paint as rosy of a picture as some people want to believe.

namatad
And what's REALLY great is that you asked question that SHOULD be asked. HOW MUCH of each substance is actually leaving our atmosphere?

The earth is much like a CSTR in a wastewater treatment plant. There are inflows of pollutants (emissions) and outflows (precipitation of solids, absorption of biodegradable material by plants or algae, radioactive decay, etc). Saying "oh, we reduced the inflow" does NOT correlate directly to a reduction in pollutant in the reactor. That's my entire point. That's it. I'm saying that simply because we have reduced the inflow, it doesn't mean everything's "peachy".

I'm not saying the environment in the US has not improved in the past 30 years (as some have tried to assume).

It's not like your entire profile isn't filled with info about your politics or anything.
Where in my profile does it say I'm an, as namatad suggested, "environmentalist"?

And what's funny... my profile doesn't go in depth about my political beliefs.
I rant about how much I hate Bush (who can blame me? See my specific pro/anti list for a little insight as to why I think he's a farkhole). I also mention specific topics I have a strong opinion on. Heck, you probably don't know what political party I belong to! I mention my libertarian LEANINGS, but that doesn't mean I'm a member of that party. A hint: I currently hate the party I am registered under. And my Bush rant might give a hint as to which party that is... and you might be surprised about the answer.

Again, I don't see the environment mentioned... and yet, an assumption was made about my environmental beliefs by someone I cannot recall having a conversation with before on Fark.

Actually, thank you, because there's something I'm actually going to add to my profile that I previously left out.